Skip to main content

View Diary: Superficiality != Sexism (64 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Could you be more patronizing? (7+ / 0-)

    You should look behind the inflated self image behind your wording before you write another comment, IMHO.

    Secondly, give me a break.  Are you actually trying to claim that Palin does not attempt to leverage her appearance constantly?  The photoshoot for that running magazine begs to differ.

    •  This is what I'm saying. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Derfel

      Here's your original claim:

      It is especially bothersome to me that people would make claims of sexism when Palin herself leverages her appearance at every opportunity to further her career.

      Summarized,you're saying:

      1. Palin leverages her appearance...."
      1. "People make claims of sexism" about some criticisms of Palin.  
      1.  The people of point 2 bother you.

      In other words, in that particular statement, you're saying that because Palin "leverages her appearance", criticisms of her should not be considered sexist.  

      That's flawed logic in your statement.  By pointing out your flawed logic I do not mean to be patronizing, I simply want you to consider what you are saying.

      •  You're not understanding my point (5+ / 0-)

        Here's a tip for the future; when you think that what you are reading doesn't make sense, try giving it another read.  Assume first that you do not understand rather than assuming the author doesn't know what they are writing.

        Secondly, I did not say at all that there cannot be sexist comments against Palin (in fact at the end of the diary I state exactly the opposite.)  What I say is that calling superficial criticisms sexist is especially galling because Palin leverages her appearance.  In other words, she makes her appearance an issue.  She makes it part of her platform.  It thereby becomes "fair game".  Whether it is worthwhile game I will leave up to the individual.

        I reiterate that you do not seem to have understood my argument, or are deliberately misconstruing it.

        •  Thanks for the tip. (0+ / 0-)

          You originally wrote:

          It is especially bothersome to me that people would make claims of sexism when Palin herself leverages her appearance at every opportunity to further her career.

          Now you've amended your claim to say:

          calling superficial criticisms sexist is especially galling because Palin leverages her appearance

          But either way, superficial or not, whether or not a particular claim is sexist has nothing to do with the behavior of the person being criticized.  

          You keep bringing up Palin's behavior to defend certain ("superficial") criticisms of her.  Why?

          My original point was this:  a criticism of a woman (Palin or any woman) is either sexist or not sexist on its own merits.  The behavior of the subject of the criticism is irrelevant to that.  

          •  I clarified for your benefit (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            csquared

            Because you did not understand my point.  I think it was pretty clear what I was speaking about the whole diary.  I very clearly illustrated the difference between sexist and superficial comments.  I was also very clearly talking about how superficial comments are falsely labeled as sexist.  I then went on to say that this is especially galling because Palin herself makes her appearance an issue.

            If you do not understand the above, I don't know what more to say to you.  It is an extremely simple concept and logical argument.

            •  Could you please provide (0+ / 0-)

              some examples of "how superficial comments are falsely labeled as sexist"?

              •  Oh come on (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                csquared

                You know what I'm talking about.  I linked to the other diary at the top of mine.  Are you just being obtuse on purpose now or what?

                It's really simple.  Someone says "Ann Coulter looks like a scarecrow."  Someone else calls that sexist.  It's not sexist, it is shallow and childish, but it is not sexist.

                •  No, I'm not being deliberately obtuse. (0+ / 0-)

                  You make a strong claim, in your diary and in your comments.  I haven't seen such statements.  Please provide actual, specific examples to back your claim.

                  •  WTF (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    csquared

                    I did provide you specific examples.  I just told you where they are again.

                    As far as finding other examples, sorry buddy I have better things to do with my day than maintain an index of comments.  I respond to things on here as they happen and then move on.  I don't keep records.

                    •  You did not provide even one (0+ / 0-)

                      specific example.  Not one.  

                      The entire premise of your diary is about some illegitimate claims of sexism.  

                      Then you link to a diary with 1,000+ comments, and say they are there.  

                      Where?  Which ones?  I have no idea which comments you are referring to.

                      You have no real argument if you cannot provide some examples beyond vague references.  

                      Could you not please provide just a few examples to prove the premise of your diary?

                    •  It's OK. (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm not surprised that you cannot come up with any examples to back the claim of your diary.

                      Basically, you said you were upset that people were saying that people on DKos are being sexist.  You have written your diary saying that you do not like the fact that people are being accused of making sexist comments.

                      You wrote your diary to criticize a diary that says people on DKos are being sexist.  That diary bothered you.  And, by the way, that same diary provided many, specific examples of people making sexist statements.  

                      And in the end, you have not provided a single example to back your claim.  

                      •  Your rebuttal is weak (0+ / 0-)

                        That whole diary is non-stop examples.  Your requirement that I go out and find and then point you to other examples outside of that diary is ridiculous.  You resort to that because you cannot make an actual logical argument against my point.

                        I am done responding to you.  This exchange with you has been extremely tedious.

                        •  If you don't feel that you have a (0+ / 0-)

                          sufficient response to my claims, then by all means go ahead and ignore me.  

                          But if you still believe in your argument, then I'd like to hear your defense.  

                          You are now saying that basically every example provided in that diary as instances of sexism is, in fact, not sexism.  

                          OK, well a few claims the diarist cites:

                          1.

                          Ann Coulter = disgusting anorexic hag. Sarah Palin = disgusting, witch-looking yeast monster.

                          2.

                          Ann Coulter is an anorexic ass

                          3.

                          Coulter: sex on a stick. And not good sex at that.

                          1.  

                          Is her age more than her weight I wonder?

                          You see no sexism at work here?

                          Or maybe, as you say, you consider this tedious.  You seem to have more important, less tedious work to attend to.  

                          •  I've said it a hundred times (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Calvino Partigiani

                            I do NOT consider those sexist.  I don't know how I could have been more clear.

                            They are shallow, superficial ad hominem attacks, devoid of any substance.  But they are not sexist.

                            And yes I do find explaining myself to you over and over very tedious.  And I actually DO have other work I am trying to get done.

                          •  Alright, well I'm sorry if you feel (0+ / 0-)

                            I've wasted your time.

                            In my view those attacks are clearly sexist.  Calling a woman one dislikes a

                            disgusting anorexic hag

                            is to me an obviously sexist claim.

                            I could try to explain why calling a woman these names is sexist, but you've apparently already made up your mind that such statements are not sexist.    

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site