The Castratus
By Mitch Berg
One of the most irritating conceits of feminism run amok is that women are smarter/more capable/more worthy/just-plain-better than men.
Usually you get it in an offhanded jape from the not-overly-bright; a comic’s “ladies, we know you’re smarter than us” – harmless stuff.
And I wouldn’t go to far as to say Charlie Brooker’s piece in the the Guardian is “harmful” as observe that it explains a lot about a certain part of the left.
Women – why aren’t you running the world yet? Frankly I’m disappointed in you. Men are still far too dominant for their own good, and consequently we’ve made a testosterone-sodden pig’s ear of just about everything: politics, the economy, religion, the environment … you name it, it’s in a gigantic man-wrought mess. The world’s been one big d***-swinging contest, and we’ve caught our collective glans in a nearby desk fan. By rights we should be squealing for your help, but we’re not, because we’re too damn stupid and too damn proud. We swagger convincingly, and that’s about it. And swaggering’s fine for scraping by in primitive times, but the world we’ve built is altogether more complex now. We’ve got stock exchanges and nuclear warheads. It’s too easy to swagger your way into big trouble without even realising. Well, we’ve had our turn. It’s time for the Rise of the Ladies.We don’t need a few women in conspicuous positions of power scattered here and there – we need a 10-year prohibition on all forms of male power.
I’ve read this same piece a few countless times, of course; it wends its way through the usual bilge; men are simple and singleminded, the world would be better if men lay about like pigs, which is (couldn’t see this coming) their true nature, bla bla bla, along with the inevitable:
Seriously: a decade in which men don’t get to control anything, from the remote control upwards. Imagine the consequences. For one thing, there would be an instant and massive reduction in armed conflict around the globe.
Of course, women in power in major countries seem to inevitably end up fighting wars…
…but let’s not confuse the issue with actual history and stuff.
I read this kind of tripe, and I’m dragged back to something I asked a few years back:
Who have been the great rulers of matriarchal societies? Who knows?
The theory I’ve heard – and I can’t remember when or from whom, sorry – is that matriarchal societies tend to be more inward-focused; it’s in matriarchal socities that it’s believed that “it takes a village to raise a child”; according to the theory, a matriarchal society behaves more or less like a group of girls will act; verbal, group-oriented, alternately supportive and undercutting.
Patriarchal societies, says the theory, act like boys; outward facing, rules-based, individualistic.
Most societies, of course, mix the two in some way or another, more or less. And when two societies collide in conflict, it’s usually the patriarchal one that prevails (see: the spread of intensely patriarchal Islam across heavily-matriarchal Africa).
Again – as I noted above, the only large, significant society in all of history that has seriously addressed the notion of equity among races, beliefs and genders is the patriarchal, Judeo-Christian western civilization.
Question: If the Judeo-Christian West were a matriarchal society, would it have developed into small-l liberal democracies? Or would they be recognizable to us today? Would they be viable?
As re Mr. Brooker, I’m casting pearls before misandric swine. But the question has fascinated me for years: what would a matriarchal west look like? And I don’t mean the idealized fantasy that the likes of Brooker and some of the identity feminists give us, where female rule brings universal peace and healthcare and calm rationality.
Would would a matriarchal west look like?
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:32 am
“Would would a matriarchal west look like?”
Scandinavia were female representation in parliament doubles the rest of the world.
http://www.iwdc.org/resources/fact_sheet.htm
Peace, prosperity, long life, and lots of free child-care.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:24 am
Well, it’s a nice, selective reading of facts, but at least there’s “facts”. Sorta:
Peace, prosperity, long life, and lots of free child-care.
The “peace” comes from the fact that they are quite serious about defending themselves, and Norway and Denmark having learned the hard way that pacifism doesn’t bring you peace. Long life is related to genes and lifestyle, and in any case was a part of Scandinavian life long before “feminism” came to the north. Prosperity is a result of immense natural resources and some successful industries (that have survived socialism). As to the free childcare – have you seen their suicide rates?
Swing and a miss.
Anyone else?
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:33 am
It would look the way GM did under the influence of the UAW: entitlements for all retirees, overtime pay for workers staying longer than five hours per shift, etc. Until finally the money runs out and the whole house of cards collapses.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:40 am
Well, we did have a couple major Western states run by women in the last century, England under Thatcher and Israel under Meir. If anything the states moved to the right and became lest classically “feminine” under them IIRC
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:09 am
Let’s not forget Elizabeth I… and I seem to recall some violence and strife.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
Add Catherine the Great and Indira Gandhi. Clearly having a woman leader isn’t a path to peace and stability all by itself.
But that’s not really the situation I’m talking about. Many sub-saharan African societies were very matriarchal, for example (the implications of which are still felt in African-American society today); when they ran up against intensely-patriarchal Islam (not to mention the illiberal side of the patriarchal West), they could not stand.
Here’s perhaps a better question; had the West been Matriarchal, would the United States have ever existed as a democratic republic?
(All: feel free to answer in the form of a reasoned response, as opposed to an overheated knee-jerk reaction to an impingement on your worldview, whatever it is).
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
I think that in a patriarchal system like we have in the West. when a woman reached the top, she is virtually indistinguishable from her male counterparts. No strike that. She has less necessity to assert the idea that she is a warm caring individual then men do. It’s kind of a “Only Nixon could go to China” deal.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
As to the free childcare – have you seen their suicide rates?
I have to question this one, Big Guy. According to Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
Lithuania comes in at the top with a total rate of 38.6 per 100,000 people.
Belarus and Russia come in respectively at 35.1 and 32.2
The good ole US of A is 11.1. Denmark 13.7, Sweden 13.3, Norway 11.6.
We Norwegians are usually too stubborn to kill ourselves.
As for Scandanavian longevity, it’s really cold up there. You’re less likely to go bad.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:33 am
I don’t think that there has ever been a matriarchial society. A patriarchial society ruled by a woman? Yes. A Society where women, as a matter of policy, control politics? No.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Terry says:
” A patriarchial society ruled by a woman? Yes. A Society where women, as a matter of policy, control politics? No. ”
I think I follow you Terry, but I”m not sure. Could you elaborate?
I would have avoided the definitions of matriarchy and patriarchy entirely, and rather opted for a definition of women having indirect access to control of politics – and policy, copmared to more direct access participation such as voting, serving on juries and as judges, in the military, in other positions of authority such as police, economic positions of power, and in Academia and the Sciences. Obviously, I construe “control” rather broadly.
I see the US as in transition from women participating predominantly indirectly, to now participating more directly. Ideally, neither women OR men, will “control” or dominate the other, politically or otherwise, as the desideratum to aspire.
Mr. Hedrick is correct; NOT all women ARE more caring – or LESS caring – than their male counterparts, and the image of that is a key role in how women progress in the world of business. I’d LIKE to think I am a warm and caring woman, but truth be told, some days I have faked the warm and caring bit more than it being genuine. I know other women occasionally fake warm/caring too.
“The Castratus”????????????????????
(Gee, happen to have me in mind, at any point in writing this Mitch? — big smile on my face)
Yeah, so now I have the recollection of gently but firmly grasping the revealed testicle, pulling so as to stretch the spermatic cord while making a diagonal – not straight across – cut, so that the spermatic cord ‘snaps’ closed afterwards, so as to avoid the necessity of sutures, and resulting in little if any loss of blood. Like snapping a rubber band, just a bit less stretchy. SO, of course, I have to share that recollection….so there.
Mitch, in person, has always, always been an impeccable gentleman, in every sense of the word – the testosterone levels here not withstanding.
And he is one of the LEAST sexist / gender prejudiced men I have ever had the privilege to know. In case I haven’t said it before (I’m sure I haven’t said it enough) THANK YOU. Mille mercis, encore.
I share Mitch’s disgust at women being characterized as smarter, more complex, just better, etc. Add that despite expressing emotions DIFFERENTLY from women , I also vehemently resist the notion that men feel emotions less deeply as well. Clearly they do feel things that go very deeply, AND they shouldn’t have to conform to a more feminine expression to receive consideration for them (as in forcing sharing feelings).
Besides WANTING to be more gender equal, to attain it really needs a better understanding of what the actual differences ARE. The negative stereotypes are not one-sided; I just finished up a blog post addressing the offensive comments about the Sotomayor nomination made by G. Gordon Liddy on his radio show, referring to menstruation. In contrast to his inaccurate assumptions about women and their capabilities, I presented among other things, a reference to content on the web site of the Acadamey of Sciences of the United States, about gender differences as examined by a neuroeconomics study at Cambridge. (Fascinating field, btw). Fact is not so much stranger than ‘fiction’, or badly founded assumptions, when it comes to gender, but it is certainly very different.
“Of Men and Menses”; (a play on “of Mice and Men”) itshould be up later on today sometime on Penigma’s blog. I’m guesting while he is doing family things. As you are very successful, I’d appreciate any constructive criticism you could provide. (Bill Haverberg – I’d appreciate hearing from you as well.) I have to add, I have even more respect that before for the amount of time and dedication you must put in to put out the quantity of blog entry you do each day. Whew! Glad you enjoy it, because it is also WORK.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Dog Gone, I mean a society where women control public policy. We know what a patriarchy looks like. Women are not allowed to hold public office, choose who holds a public office, or own real property. I am certain that there has been no society where the roles are reversed.
While it is true that throughout history women have worked indirectly to control public policy, that confirms rather than dispels stereotypical gender roles.
I believe that it is easy to overstate the role of female rulers in patriarchial societies. The brits were unusual in that they allowed themselves to have a female head of state. The French did not allow their monarch to be a queen, and in any event ER was head of state only for dynastic reasons. The alternatives were Catholics and the male-ruled parliament would not allow that.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Just remember, on the average, everyone has one testicle and one ovary…
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
You’re post on the Penisblog shows your strong liberal bias.
Most sane and logical citizens would prefer that we keep the blindfold on Ms. Justice and don’t put a weight of racism on one side of the balance.
“…Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male…”
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
billhedrick Says:
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Just remember, on the average, everyone has one testicle and one ovary… ”
Don’t get me started on the whole one testicle thing; seriously, the monorchid /cryptorchid situation, can be messy… having to go look for them, digging around…. interestingly, I’ve never noticed ovaries to go missing, wandering around in the body cavity the way testicles sometimes do. Gender differences.
I have a sinking feeling that I may have created a more ah… vivid… shall we say…”persona” here on SitD than I had originally intended. An old friend – even older than Mitch – once complimented me on my mastery of what she termed “conversational terrorism”. I suppose it is waaay too late for plausible deniability that I know what she meant?
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Terry”
“The alternatives were Catholics and the male-ruled parliament would not allow that.”
You have got your British history wrong. Elizabeth I succeeded Mary who was Catholic and supported by Parliament. If Mary had produced a Catholic child that child would have become monarch. AS for Mary Queen of Scots, even Cathoics admitted Elizabeth stood ahead in line of succession. That is why radical Catholics felt Elizabeth must be killed before Mary could take the throne. Elizabeth would never have tolerated a bill barring Mary Q of S from the throne. Latter Catholic James II took the throne. Catholics were not barred from the throne until the Act of Settlement of 1701. This act was the first time Parliament required the monarch to be a member of the Church of England. It was prompted by the death of the last Protestant from the House of Stuart. The other Catholic Stuarts were passed over for the House of Hanover.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
My points, which I have perhaps been too subtle about are 2:
Women rulers can be freer to be ruthless than men, because men are constantly challenged nowadays to be caring and considerate. The assumption (quite wrong IMHO) is that women are naturally caring and considerate, so they escape the restrictions. The second point about average testicle density is that averages, and group assessments are almost invariably wrong. These might seem to contradict each other, but hey! That’s the way it goes.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
You have got your British history wrong.
Where? After Mary Parliament would not accept a catholic as head of state.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
The assumption that females are more caring and considerate never dated girls when attending junior high school and high school.
😉
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Would would a matriarchal west look like?
Oprah.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:34 am
Terry:
“After Mary Parliament would not accept a catholic as head of state. ”
James II, reigned after Mary, was Catholic, and was Head of State with consent of Parliament.
From the Reformation to 1701, Parliament, generally, did not want a Catholic monarch but was unwilling or unable, because or royal opposition, to exclude them by law. Charles II vetoed attempts to bar James II from the throne. Elizabeth vetoed a similar bill barring Mary Queen of Scots.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:35 am
RickDFL, my statement was not about the monarch, but about parliament. I am sure you do this on purpose — you want to play historical ‘gotcha’, but you don’t know that much about history, so when you get caught you try and change the topic.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:03 am
K-rod, my post on penigma shows that the quote is taken out of context, and is used to completely, factually, misrepresent Sotomayor. Clearly you have not read the entire original from which that quote is taken; or compared her comments to the actual comments of sitting justices on the Supreme Court.
As to what you identify as my liberal bias – in REAL debates, not the speechifying opportunities on television and radio with candidates at election time, there is a resolution. Debaters have to argue successfully BOTH sides of that resolution.
Here I tend to argue against what I see as errors in thinking from the conservative / right / GOP point of view. I save similar arguments against liberal / left / DEM errors in thinking for THEIR websites / blogs/etc. From my comments here, you still have no idea what my actual beliefs ARE, my political point of view, because that has not been what I have chosen to express.
It is too easy, and not nearly as much fun, to be one more voice chanting:
“we are the chorus,
we agre,
we agree!”
I am delighted that Mitch has been so successful, here and on his radio show. As a friend of his, I sincerely wish him only continued, greater success. The one thing you CAN be certain of, is that with any comment I post, despite often being in disagreement, I want that comment to be a positive and constructive contribution to any discussion, that it be thoughtful, courteous, and has some legitimate factual basis for any dissent. If it stimulates more discussion, or better discussion, then that is a bonus. I enjoy challenging Mitch, surprising him if I can, and most of all, making him laugh – he has a really quirky, fun laugh.
Guys, seriously for a moment – it’s mostly good natured, but there is a chronic tendency to wander off topic into … shall we say a certain obsession with posterior anatomy? Often. Not what I choose for my contribution.
As for this discussion – I think it is proceeding from asking the wrong original questions.
Back on my high school debate team, I and a female team member debated two male students from another school. The debate was well argued on both sides, but our side won. After the debate, we shook hands, and the male students politely congratulated us…. and made the comment that we surprised them because we thought like males.
In person, I tend to ‘shoot from the lip’, and so without hesitation I replied, that by their reasoning, since they lost, then they must not have (thought like males). Before I could continue, as I was warming up to do, my debate partner took me by the arm and steered me out of the room. The debate judge, a man, was laughing out loud – a lot – as we left. In retrospect, I sincerely wish I had been a more gracious winner, but the comment really irritated me because of its false assumptions.
To this day I don’t know what is meant by ‘thinking like a man’ or having ‘a masculine intellect’, despite having it said to me often in my life. The equation 2 + 2 = 4, regardless of gender.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:26 am
“It is too easy, and not nearly as much fun, to be one more voice chanting:
“we are the chorus,
we agre,
we agree!””
Make up your mind, Doggy, was your post on Penisblog easy or hard “work”?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Like I said, most sane and logical citizens would prefer that we keep the blindfold on Ms. Justice and don’t put a weight of racism on one side of the balance.
“…Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male…”
Word have meaning.
Spin away lefty liberals, spin away.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:30 am
from my comments here, you still have no idea what my actual beliefs ARE, my political point of view, because that has not been what I have chosen to express.
If you have not been expressing your actual political beliefs, what are you doing here? It’s bad form to say “I believe the Bushies need to be investigated and prosecuted for torturing enemy combatants”, then say “argue on — but I don’t necessarily believe that the Bushies should be investigated and prosecuted for torture”. This is not a debate club. There are no judges, only a moderator.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
Terry:
What part of ‘James II after Mary Catholic Monarch’ did you miss?
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:44 am
“It is too easy, and not nearly as much fun, to be one more voice chanting:
“we are the chorus,
we agre,
we agree!””
Make up your mind, doggy, was it “too easy” or was it hard “work” posting/chanting over on Penisblog?
Like I said, most sane and logical citizens would prefer that we keep the blindfold on Ms. Justice and don’t put a weight of racism on one side of the balance.
Words have meaning:
“…Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male…”
Do you secretly shun such racist comments, Doggy?
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:49 am
Oh good lord, RickDFL. Parliament tossed James II out after three years because he was catholic! In other words, parliament would not accept a catholic as head of state!
I know you really want to play this ‘gotcha’ game, but you are discussing things that you seem to know next to nothing about. There were two monarchs with Catholic sympathies after Mary. Parliament beheaded the first, and sent the 2nd one packing.
Do I have to bookmark this thread along with the one where you declared Missouri a confederate state?
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Terry:
“tossed James II out after three years because he was catholic”
If it had simply been his Catholic faith that was objectionable he would never have obtained the throne. His religion was not a secret. Parliament objected to his replacing Protestant public officials with Catholics and his refusal to enforce anti-Catholic laws. If he had ruled as a Catholic without attacking the privileges of the Ch of Eng. he would have been fine.
Nor did Parliament toss him out. Officially the held James II abandoned the throne by fleeing to France. There was never a Parliamentary majority willing to say he could be removed from the throne for being a Catholic (or any other reason). Parliament did not feel it got to accept or reject a monarch based on their religion.
And if you really want to get nitpicky Charles II, who converted on his deathbed, was far more pro-Catholic than Charles I. But it was the less pro-Catholic Charles I who got executed (and not for being a Catholic).
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Look RickDFL, if I had meant ‘there were no catholic monarchs after Mary’ I would have written ‘there were no catholic monarchs after Mary”.
What the hell is your point? Is this your reading comprehension problem again? You know, the one where you purposely misconstrue what people write so you can try to play ‘gotcha’?
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Kermit has some tips for proper circle party etiquette.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Terry:
I just find fascinating the lengths you people will go to deny obvious facts. You were certainly wrong about the mythical Catholic heir Parliament passed over to put ER on the throne.
As for Parliament’s position, I have simply tried to state it clearly. You talk loosely and vaguely about it. If the roles were reversed I would thank you for the correction.
Is it important? You seem to attribute to Parliament the view that they could exclude someone from the throne because they were Catholic. That is wrong. Stuart history is interesting because Parliament wanted to keep a Protestant monarch but was unwilling (until 1701) to legally exclude the possibility. If Parliament thought it could simply ‘toss out’ J II because he was Catholic, the story would have been a lot simpler.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
K-rod says:
Like I said, most sane and logical citizens would prefer that we keep the blindfold on Ms. Justice and don’t put a weight of racism on one side of the balance.
“…Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male…”>>
Words have meaning, yes.
Apparently you chose to disregard the rest of Sotomayor’s words that didn’t fit your accusation that Sotomayor is a racist. In fact, she very much agrees with you – which you would know if you had bothered to do your homework before making an accusation.
Like here, where Sotomayor affirms the belief she shares with another judge, Miriam Cederbaum, which refutes your position. Quoting Sotomayor, consistent with the entirety of her presentation:
“Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again(st*) people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. “>
K-rod: “Spin away lefty liberals, spin away. “>>
Words do have meaning but taking them out of context can be done in such a way as to distort their meaning, and completely change what is said, every bit as much as removing or changing a word in a quote.
It is dishonest, and it weakens the position you promote, destroying any basis for credibility. Attacking someone stupidly, as this does, is just distraction and empty wheel-spinning, taking away focus from a more substantive examination. It does not genuinely benefit a conservative or Republican view point, and it does not promote a worthwhile discussion.
Frankly, ‘Rod, you seem all too willing to believe the worst about anyone that disagrees with you, or you think might disagree with you, without the slightest fact checking. And you are not the only one who does that. (yes, it happens on the ‘other side’ as well). 1. It’s wrong. 2. I don’t see that as doing anything but further shrinking an already disappearing base for conservatives et al.
In any case, it is something that merits being challenged. So… I do. I like exercises in critical thinking, intellectual honesty, and fairness. I don’t like what appears to me to be a sometimes artificially created divide where there shouldn’t be one.
In any case, apologies – probably due to problems at my end (my internet access equipment was upgraded this afternoon, finally, after a lot of problems) – the original posting I had mentioned, On Men and Menses, not the earlier Sotomayor piece, is NOW up on Penigma’s blog, belatedly. In case you have any doubts in your minds, it was intended to be humerous; mostly.
Terry says:
“If you have not been expressing your actual political beliefs, what are you doing here?”>>
I have honestly identified myself as an Independent. As such, I am critical of arguments on BOTH the right and the left, conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat. I believe a thoughtful and constructive criticism is a positive contribution, not at all the same as trolling or attacking someone. If all you want is for everyone to be a ‘yes man’, and never point out errors, problems, or mistakes, or to raise questions, then that would be a bad thing, IMHO.
I find this “either you are with us or you are against us” mentality deeply disturbing. Even if I never change a single person’s mind here, but make so much as a small dent in that outlook, it is worthwhile. Someone can disagree with you, without being an enemy – and even be a person you come to like and respect.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
RickDFL-
Your last comment makes no sense. In order for it to make sense, you would have to actually show where I was “certainly wrong about the mythical Catholic heir Parliament passed over to put ER on the throne.” I never mentioned anything about a catholic heir being passed over to give ER the throne. You are imagining things. You could, of course, show where I had written about the “Catholic heir Parliament passed over to put ER on the throne” but you will not and cannot, because I never wrote such a thing. You have a problem you have that makes you a terrible debater, RickDFL. You put words in peoples’ mouth, or simply paraphrase what they have written so that it suits your argument better. This does not speak well about the quality of your thinking.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I find this “either you are with us or you are against us” mentality deeply disturbing.
Your emotional state is of no consequence in a debate, Dog Gone. Why mention it? Given what you’ve written earlier in this thread, how is the reader supposed to know that you really are ‘deeply disturbed’? Why would they care?
If all you want is for everyone to be a ‘yes man’, and never point out errors, problems, or mistakes, or to raise questions, then that would be a bad thing, IMHO.
Your debating style seems to be point to highly prejudicial mainstream media articles and television shows. These, I assume, agree with your point of view. Or not. Whatever. Not much is added to a discussion on, say, taxes, by linking to PBS Frontline special on taxes. PBS is funded, in large part, by taxes.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
“Now Judge Cedarbaum… She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based.”
So out of one side of Judge Sonya’s mouth she says that Judge Cedarbaum said that bias can be dangerous on the bench.
And right out the other side she shows her racism:
“…Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male…”
Sorry, doggy, we aren’t selecting the captain of the high school debate team or homecoming queen or college quiz bowl captain…
This is the US Supreme Court. The highest court in the land!
Obama should be looking for the best of the best, the cream of the crop, to nominate to the US Supreme Court.
Your bias is exposed when you claim this nominee is the best of the best.
Come on, can’t Obama do any better?
Where is that new bi-partisan work accross the isle, that new spirit of working together, that CHANGE Obama promised he would bring to Washington DC? Where?
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Terry Now:
“I never mentioned anything about a catholic heir being passed over to give ER the throne.”
Terry Then:
“ER was head of state only for dynastic reasons. The alternatives were Catholics and the male-ruled parliament would not allow that.”
Is there someway you can reconcile these two statements? How does parliament “not allow” a Catholic without passing over a Catholic heir? I am genuinely perplexed.
If I put words in your mouth it is because you don’t seem to use them very precisely.
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Actually, RickDFL, the statements that have to be reconciled are my statement:
“ER was head of state only for dynastic reasons. The alternatives were Catholics and the male-ruled parliament would not allow that.”
And your response:
You were certainly wrong about the mythical Catholic heir Parliament passed over to put ER on the throne.
Note that I never stated that anyone had been passed over to put ER on the throne. Once again, you ‘reinterpret’ what a commenter has said to support your argument.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Terry said: “Your debating style seems to be point to highly prejudicial mainstream media articles and television shows.”
You see, Dog Bone, these wingnuts have a closed belief system. Any authority you offer to support your argument is, by definition, biased. You can’t actually believe *mainstream* media, can you? When you have all that kooky, far-right fringe material to choose from?
Arguing with these people is like watching a heavyweight champ box a midget who keeps running away. Don’t spend time linking to articles and whatnot. My suggestion: mock. Much more bang for your buck. And there’s so much to choose from here.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Angry Clown, Dog Gone recommended a PBS Frontline documentary about how republicans wanted to cut taxes at every opportunity while the people wanted more government spending.
PBS and Frontline are supported by tax dollars.
Earlier Dog Gone had recommended a story in the strib about a UM sociology study that showed that evil mortgage brokers had been forcing poor people to take out high-cost mortgages. It took less than 60 seconds on the web for me to find out that the methodology of the study was poor (using census data from 2000 to identify who had taken out a bad mortgage in 2006-2008) and was paid for by a law firm that sues banks on behalf of — ta da! Poor people.
But you keep believing the NYT, the network news and the news weeklies, AC. They need the audience.
June 4th, 2009 at 12:46 am
K-rod says:
“Now Judge Cedarbaum… She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based.”
So out of one side of Judge Sonya’s mouth she says that Judge Cedarbaum said that bias can be dangerous on the bench.
And right out the other side she shows her racism:
“…Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male…”.
Wrong on both counts K-rod. Sotomayor is speaking about the effects of overcoming her disadvantaged background in richness of experience. You have clearly not read her speech. Not so very different from the comments of Scalia about drawing on his background (from his Senate hearing):
Scalia:”Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. … And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position. […]
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”
So you would make it ok for Alito to talk about his background affecting favoritism in his decisions (which Sotomayor doesn’t support), but call Sotomayor a racist for believing that her “richness of experience” would enable her to make a better decision than a white man with less richness or equivalent experience. The entire Sotomayor speech is about experiences, how they should AND should not affect judicial thinking. K-rod says that Sotomayor is talking out of both sides of her mouth, even though the entirety of her speech reconciles the two statements, AND mkaes it very clear that she is not a racist.
Someone who desperately wants and needs to believe that Sotomayor is a racist, would HAVE to avoid reading her speech, in order to continue making an untrue accusation. It would just kill you to be fair, and accurate.
And I have never said that Sotomayor is the best choice Obama could make; earlier on this blog I agreed with Jay Redding that I thought Kagan would have been a better choice. What I have argued is that Sotomayor is not accuraely being portrayed as a racist, and that other statements that have been criticized are duplicates of current sitting Supreme Court judges – like Thomas and the quality of empathy, or Scalia commenting on the changes to laws by judges (referring to the ways that precedent works). The Scalia quote btw was another MN reference – it was in the majority view of the court in Republican Party of MN v White (2002).
When criticizing someone, or especially when making accusations, they should be true and factual in nature and substantive, not distortions, manipulations, or outright lies. Or sleezy hoaxes like the accusation about Biden’s daughter perpetrated by druggies trying to get an extra buck to snort up their nose.
If you can’t win playing fair, K-rod, you really just can’t win.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Is this really you, Dog Gone, or is this one of your ‘personas’ writing?
June 4th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Terry says:
“Earlier Dog Gone had recommended a story in the strib about a UM sociology study that showed that evil mortgage brokers had been forcing poor people to take out high-cost mortgages. It took less than 60 seconds on the web for me to find out that the methodology of the study was poor (using census data from 2000 to identify who had taken out a bad mortgage in 2006-2008) and was paid for by a law firm that sues banks on behalf of — ta da! Poor people.”
No, I heard about a study relating to subprime mortgages on the radio, and the site I went to was the U of MN Law School site. They were the source for the study, and my source of information – NOT the Strib article (never saw it). That study was one of multiple similar studies which were researching violations of law related to subprime mortgages and discrimination, and there were relatively few details provided on the site, other than a brief summary of the data.
You Terry mentioned playing the race card, and asserted that because there were other factors than just having a high enough income to qualify for a regular mortgage, those other factors were the reason when blacks and other minorities with comparable or higher incomes were pushed into subprimes.
I pointed out that the only original source of the information didn’t provide that information one way or the other. It subsequently turned out that those studies collecting data for court cases HAD accounted for those other factors, and that those ‘other factors’, AND the high income, WERE in fact comparable or better than those of whites getting regular mortgages, demonstrating prima facie racial and ethnic discrimination. NOT as you had hypothesized, someone ‘just playing the race card’.
I do not recall what Frontline documentary you refer to; a brief check of the Frontline PBS website, reviewing episodes going back to 2005, did not turn up such an episode as you describe. PBS generally, and their news and documentary producers in particular, are funded by a variety of sources, including membership donations, grants from very diverse groups including some conservative ones, people’s wills, with relatively little from government funding to what PBS used to receive. I do recall recommending a Bill Moyer’s Journal episode that featured Wm. K. Black on bailouts.
Whiile I do not share your paranoia about the mainstream media, I try to access a wide variety of news sources, including from time to time some that are foreign language sources, to avoid the same prejudices over and over. Further, I make an effort to verify further as much as possible that information.
And while this is not a debate club – or a club of any other kind – when I was on a Debate Team which competed much the same way that sports competition took place under organized school auspices – we were expected NOT to cherry pick quotes to support a position, but rather were expected to familiarize ourselves with the entirety of a source. Misrepresentation of information to make an argument was an immediate fail; and it would have resulted in a metaphorical trip behind the woodshed and being ripped up one side and down the other for unethical conduct. Also, for having done more to weaken OUR OWN position than the other side of a debate could have done to us. The exercise of arguing both pro and against a resolution was to try to teach us critical thinking, and to recognize that both sides had valid and invalid arguments that could be presented – we were supposed to learn the difference. That seems worthwhile here too.
I’m not advocating we establish a blog-based debating society. I’m suggesting a higher level of integrity in learning the facts – the full facts – before making accusations; and for a higher level of integrity and critical thinking. A good thing to advocate in the face of the pressure to a more narrow conformity.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:26 am
“I’m suggesting a higher level of integrity in learning the facts – the full facts – before making accusations; and for a higher level of integrity and critical thinking.”
Great post, Dog Bone. As for that higher level of integrity on SitD. well…good luck with that!
June 4th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Terry:
“I never stated that anyone had been passed over to put ER on the throne.’ No you didn’t but your other statement “ER was head of state only for dynastic reasons. The alternatives were Catholics and the male-ruled parliament would not allow that.” could not possibly be true unless some catholic had been passed over by Parliament. It is a logical consequence of the first. Again, how does parliament “not allow” a Catholic without passing over a Catholic heir? Who was the Catholic they did not allow. How can they be not allowed to rule by Parliament unless they were ahead of ER in the line of succession?
If I reinterpret your statement it is simply by deducing its logical consequence. That is not an unfair trick, that is how arguments work.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Dogbone Says:
“Sotomayor is speaking about the effects of overcoming her disadvantaged background…”
Talk about reading between the lines to the Nth degree!!!!!
“…Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male…”
“Richness” must be a code word for “disadvantaged”, eh Dogbone.
.
Scalia:”… my background and my experiences have shaped me… someone who is an immigrant … my own ancestors … they were in that position.
…a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”
Where did Scalia claim he would make better decisions because he is a white man? Spin away, Dog.
“So you would make it ok for Alito to talk about his background affecting favoritism in his decisions…” – DogGone
What are you talking about?!?!?!?!?!?!? When did Alito say his race would lend favoratism instead of strictly interpreting the Constitution?
“she is not a racist.”
OK, she might not be, but her comment was.
I simply quoted a Latina woman who said she would “reach a better conclusion than a white male”.
I suggest you quit digging, Dog, that is if what you wrote is really what you think.
Where is that new bi-partisan work accross the isle, that new spirit of working together, that CHANGE Obama promised he would bring to Washington DC? Where?