?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

People of a Democratic or liberal leaning like to bash Sarah Palin's ideas of being President in 2012.

Just about anyone with intelligence (like me) likes to bash Michele Bachmann's ideas of being President in 2012.

Folks, I think we can establish that, if either of them were to win, it wouldn't be the worst it could get.

Rosanne Barr is running for President.

No bullshit.  Oh, God, I wish it was bullshit....


Yeah.  Rosanne Barr.  Who, for a while, was saying she was the reincarnation of Hitler (which one do you think, smartass?) and posed for pictures putting cookies shaped like a Magem David in a gas oven.  Yeah.  That asshole.

You know what?  Let's just, for a moment, attempt to take this seriously and focus just on Barr's little screech speech above.  I was in college when the women's movement stopped being about empowerment and started being about how women are actually superior to men.  This includes the idea that, if women ran the world, there would be no wars because women are feeling creatures and men are savage animals (the Realist movement can kiss my fucking ass.  And since I'm a man and not a woman, that's not an emotional response but a reasoned one, so you dipshits have to take my conclusion seriously).  You still find the occasional New Ager who posits about some previously existing matriachal society from eons ago that ruled in peace.  Interesting thought, but there is absolutely no archeological evidence supporting that such a place existed.  And they've found fossil records suggesting (not proving, just suggesting, I don't want anyone to think I'm forcing my religious beliefs on anyone) that maybe there might be something to this Intelligent Design business after all.

I just hate the idea that men as just savages and that's it, and that if women were in charge, there'd be no problems.  Just as men can exhibit all the negative characteristics people traditionally make fun of women for (talking on the phone for hours, gossiping, vanity, pettiness, etc.), women can exhibit all the negative characteristics people traditionally make fun of men for.  Women can be violent.  They can be abusive.  It's the person, not the gender.  Statements like this are loaded because they heap all the blame on one gender and completely absolve the other with nothing to back it up other than the speaker's fantasy.  That is sexism, no matter who says it.  That is prejudice.  That is discrimination.  THAT IS WRONG!!!

The bright side is Barr no chance of gaining relevance from this.  This is someone on an ego trip and looking for volunteers to split the gas.  And the sooner she runs out, the better.

Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
balloonhat
Aug. 6th, 2011 01:36 am (UTC)
I was in college when the women's movement stopped being about empowerment and started being about how women are actually superior to men.

To clarify, is this to give your own background on your POV of feminism and feminist concerns, thus explaining where you're coming from in the last paragraph, or are you seriously saying that you think it is still like that today? To lump all feminists (myself included) as folks who believe women are superior to men is as ridiculous and wrong as saying all Republicans hate anybody in the lower middle class and all minorities. All movements have their factions, all movements go through change; the feminism of today was certainly not the feminism of turn of the 20th century. The feminism of today isn't even the feminism of the 1990s. Barr's feminism is not mine.

When I was more heavily involved in feminist causes, there was a loud group of folks who said that men should were unwelcome because it should be totally and only about, for and spearheaded by women, as well as folks who believe that women can do no wrong (including being sexist, racist, etc.). But these are not often the popular opinion, or at least they weren't at the functions I attended.

I can't speak for Roseanne Barr's ideas. I have a hard time taking comedians seriously, since anytime they deliberately step into the spotlight it's to get a reaction out of people, so the things they say are meant to get a rise. Some of the points she makes are true-ish, but the interpretations are, well, just that. I will admit that currently my opinion of her is a bit positive after reading this article a month-ish ago.

You still find the occasional New Ager who posits about some previously existing matriachal society from eons ago that ruled in peace.

I'm still not sure what people mean when they say this. There have been cultures where women were treated as closer to equals than they are today, or even had more influential power than men (in the sense that it was the women who elected what Westerners would think of as chiefs, or sometimes outright "ruled" as such chiefs). These cultures were not always the most peaceful (neither were they most aggressive, so hrm); to imagine they would be is to assume that traditionally-ascribed feminine values (nurturing, cooperation, pacifism, etc) are always true for every female ever throughout time. I'm not sure what makes people think a magical utopia would blossom if women controlled everything. It's not like nations with female prime ministers are necessarily the happiest places on the planet. Women are as much the product of (and subject to) the society they live in as the men are, although as with everything individuals can break the patterns.

I'm kinda wondering if I'm just being sensitive, as "And since I'm a man and not a woman, that's not an emotional response but a reasoned one, so you dipshits have to take my conclusion seriously" leads me to conclude that some of the things you said were intended to be a joke to some degree. I must admit that I didn't watch Barr's vid for long so I dunno if that's a reference to something she said.
sinetimore
Aug. 6th, 2011 04:21 am (UTC)
Were you being sensitive? Maybe, maybe not. The fact is, you have perfectly valid questions about my statements and are asking me what I meant, so the least I can do is attempt to clarify and/or take any lumps I deserve.

For starters, re: women's superiority vs. women's equality movements -- in retrospect, I should have described WS as an offshoot. I see how the way I wrote makes it seem like I'm suggesting WS supplanted WE. I didn't mean to suggest that. Feminism has many different interpretations as to what liberty and equality it entails, probably as many interpretations as there are people in the world. I didn't mean to suggest that one particular thought process had taken over and anyone who calls themselves a feminist believes that. That was sloppy writing on my part, and I apologize.

The "And since I'm a man...." line was an unrepentant slam on Realists like Richard Dawkins and Scott Adams. Not all Realists/Skeptics believe this (just covering the base), but there is a disturbing trend among men in the subculture to believe chauvinism is justified. Dawkins recently got himself in hot water (around the start of July, IIRC) by basically saying that, because women think emotionally, they are incapable of rational thought and should be treated as such (Scott Adams made a similar post on his blog something like a year ago). Here's the bullet points:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/05/richard-dawkins-and-male-privilege/

Given that I used to respect Dawkins and suddenly see how vehemently he defends his stupidity and hatred, it was a real shock to see that.

Oh, and I have nothing but epic respect for Skepchick.
ying_ko_4
Aug. 6th, 2011 02:29 pm (UTC)
I'd rather see Paris Hilton run for President than half the people I see throwing their hats in the ring.

Paris Hilton or Rick Perry? I know who I'd choose there.
Paris Hilton or Michelle Bachman? Again...
Paris Hilton or Mitt Romney? Interesting choice...both have no chance.
Paris Hilton or Newt Gingrich? Who has had more affairs?

It's all about perspective my friend.
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

June 2019
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com