How Republicans Discipline Uppity Democrats

It's funny, how I just now realized this. When Republicans slap down Democrats who stand up for themselves? They use the rhetoric of patriarchy to do it. They discipline Democrats with the same words and attitudes that are used to teach them damn uppity women their place. It's the same words, over and over: hysterical, frenzied, shrieking, Bush(=man)-hating, and my personal favorite: shrill. Shrill is such a dead give-away too...how did I miss it? What is that word ever used for besides to describe a woman, overexcited about some silly thing or another, busy shrieking at some poor, brow-beaten man? Besides liberals, of course.

And it goes so well with their other meta-narratives, too. The Democrats are a bunch of pansies, a pack of limp-wristed metrosexuals one frou-frou girlie drink away from belting out Barbara Streisand tunes. If they aren't, you know, actual girls. It plays to their audience, who wish they had the opportunity to impose their masculine views on the women around them, if it weren't for that whole "sexual revolution" bullshit, and now you gotta pretend to respect them as people, pay attention to them, and buy them flowers, and what is up with that shit anyway? It is a perfect accompaniment to their militaristic macho psuedo-heroic posturing--God, why didn't I see it before? The same rhetoric that exists to perpetuate the repression of women is being used to discipline the Democrats, to keep them in their well-delineated and worthless place.

On the bright side, it does mean that we have countering rhetoric waiting for us, already made: feminists have decades of material tearing apart patriarchal assumptions, some of it ought to be applicable. It means we can multi-task, if we have the guts--we can tear down patriarchal assumptions at the same time we rejuvenate liberal rhetoric. I already thought that the Democratic party ought to adopt a feminine character in order to counter the Republican's patronizing paternalism. Given that they have already established the frame, it would be an astounding act of political jujitsu.

•  The 'shrillness' meme

  Others have noticed this too. Most notabley, Stephanie Miller regularly plays Hannity or some other Repug ranting about how Hillary, etc., was "shrill" or "lost it" etc., and then switches over to the accused, invariably speaking in normal tones.

  I would expect this "shrill" meme came straight out of Luntz's ass.

  by daulton on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:43:20 PM PDT

•  let's not forget

  Schwarzenegger's "girly men" dismissal of critics.

  by blueteam on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:44:44 PM PDT

•  I think the gender linking is wrong here.

  Republicans don't take on the 'man' side of this equation, but rather the stupid outdated version of manhood that only works in films.  The appearance of knowing it all is their forte, and it's silly to think that this is a male attribute.  It's not a gender attribute, but one of a flaming asshole that likes intimidation over sense.  

  The Repubs have this in spades.  They believe that they know what is best.  Bush's administration has proven them wrong.  They're nothing but loud little termites that barely deserve the anger given while crushing them.  Let us not bring this down to gender level.  Let's bring this to finally calling Repubs what they really are:  dishonest little children who bitch and scream in a store to coerce people to their way of thinking.  A good parent--and a good Democrat--pulls them out of the store and punishes them accordingly.

  by Mother Brain on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:50:57 PM PDT

  •  Father knows best

    or so the saying goes. And there it is: certainty is a stereotypically male trait, along with brashness, confidence, etc. This stereotype of the typical macho male is something that is played up very consciously by the Republicans. It is Bush's persona in a nut shell, and John McCain's too. Their know-it-allness is merely an extension of this.

    I'm not bringing this down to gender level. It's already there--all I am doing is trying to figure out how it all works. What we are working with down here is stereotypes, caricatures, one-look reactions, all the things that people would never admit affect their decisions. We have to understand how this works, because if we don't Reoublicans are going to keep beating us with candidates who "just seem like nice guys," who "I'd like to have a beer with." We can't afford to ignore people's gut reactions, and the ways republicans manipulate them.

    by Heresiarch514 on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:09:33 PM PDT

    •  This sudden insight of yours

      I had in March when listening to an interview with Berit Ås,a Norweigian Social Psychologist.

      I did a diary
      Let's embrace and learn from the feminist movement about her insights and experiences.

      This morning there was an interview of Norweigian Social Psychologist Berit Ås. Working in the 1970's she at meetings became aware of several ways men communicated with each other that what she said was of no importance. She started to imitate these ways (getting herself coffee or turning attention to other things when someone delivered their opinion) and found that this helped in getting her own opinions heard.

      She went further and from her experiences she developed a theory of what she called "The technology of ruling".

      Let's learn something. On the flip...

      by high5 on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:03:59 AM PDT

      •  That's a great diary

        Especially the bit on the end about making the slur a point of pride. That can be a powerful tactic.

        by Heresiarch514 on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:59:12 AM PDT

      •  There are some interesting insights there

        I've noticed on kos that diarists with female sounding names don't seem to get as much attention. It would be interesting for someone to track that impression. 'scuse me - gotta get some coffee.

        by shirah on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 05:21:09 AM PDT

        •  um

          MSC might dispute that point.

          by Pope Guilty on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 05:40:31 AM PDT

      •  high5, I found the article by

        Berit Ås in English: Domination Tecniques: What They Are & How To Combat Them. Your diary really opens up the way to take back the Dems' dignity, by exposing the GOP as a bunch of mysogynistic bullies, using psyops on the Dems, and fooling the public. Rather than embracing the 'feminist' or 'mommy' theme, the Dems need to call out the GOP for being wimpy bullies who have to hide behind their word games because their ideas and policies suck.

        Please diary this again. I also encouraged Heresiarch514 to do so, hoping one of you will.

        by Halcyon on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 03:04:04 PM PDT

•  Nurturant Parent vs. Strict Father

  George Lakoff has written two books that address this to some extent. One is called 'Don't Think of an Elephant,' the other more-extensive book is 'Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think.' He addresses the principles that liberals and conservatives give priority and uses them to classify American politics into the frame of family. Liberals are the nurturant parents (not necessarily nurturant mothers), giving priority to nurturance, self-nurturance and empathy. Conservatives are the strict fathers giving priority first to obedience and then to responsibility and self-reliability. Patriarchy fits perfectly into the Republican's worldview and they have no qualms dragging it out at every opportunity.

  by Potus2020 on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:58:11 PM PDT

  •  I wonder which came first

    --the ideas, or the frame. Did people start thinking of the Republicans as the strict father because of the policies they supported, or were their policy decisions determined by their self-perception as the strict father?

    Regardless, the frames are pretty good fits on both sides of the aisle. I don't think it is going to work to try to get rid of them--better to try to work them to our advantage.

    by Heresiarch514 on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:14:38 PM PDT

    •  Think Tanks--

      None of it was accidental. It was all engineered backwards from the desired results.

      by Gooserock on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:33:43 PM PDT

  •  It wouldn't be a huge leap to go from

    Nurturing Dems; Strict Republicans, to Responsible Dems; Drunken, Abusive Republicans.

    Republicans have been really good at drinking up their paychecks, getting into bar fights, blaming everyone but themselves, coming home broke and angry, etc.

    by sagra on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 07:51:20 AM PDT

    •  Exactly. n/t

      by Heresiarch514 on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 11:07:23 AM PDT

    •  An Excellent leap! nt

      by papercut on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 11:18:28 AM PDT

•  mini rant

  I hate to say it, but yes- I think a feminine frame would work against this bunch of yellow, lily-livered, lace edged gypsy sleeved, embroidered brocade tapered leg, curly powdered wig wearing chickenhearted manicured soft buttery handed draft dodging private meeting government hating no bid contract lying sacks of crap!!!

  Dammit- just think of how much of a lousy sorry assed pansy you have to be to settle a political score using the CIA! Geeze- next thing you know somebody willing to do that could shoot their elderly hunting companion!

  The world hasn't seen wimps of this magnitude since Louis the XVI of France!

  They know it, too! Hot Miltary Stud Jeff Gannon in & out of the WH how many times? There is some serious unhealth at the top of the GOP! In my opinon- seems likely even from a distance there is some very serious perversion & repression!

  Did I say that? (laughing)

  The other thing they do is when our side does get assertive all of a sudden it's- That ANGRY Howard Dean, that CRAZY Al Gore, that ARROGANT Wes Clark, that nutty whoever. I always appreciate hearing from the truth tellers even when it is hard & personally I prefer righteous indignation.

  Most here have an idea of what has been stolen from us- but as a country & as a civilization- we should  be light years away from the kinds of problems we face & we as a country could be a pillar of light in so many ways.

  sorry for the mini rant!

  by velvetdays on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:26:25 PM PDT

  •  15 Years--

    4 buildings hit in 15 years, nothing hit in almost 5, and the Republicans are frightened little babies.

    The previous sentence does not exist.

    by Gooserock on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:35:43 PM PDT

  •  not at all; i rather enjoyed your minirant,

    especially this phrase:

    "soft buttery handed"

    -!

    it reminds me of something Tina Fey said on SNL's Weekend Update
    about our founding fathers going about in wigs and yellow satin capri pants.

    by phemme texxii on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:08:57 PM PDT

    •  but that was cool...

      in the 17th C! Looks a bit foppish in 2006! :0

      by velvetdays on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 07:16:28 AM PDT

      •  It's hard out here for a Fop. ;) n/t

        by phemme texxii on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 01:00:38 PM PDT

        •  Beverage alert

          LOL
          ah, that keyboard needed cleaning...

          by Margot on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:51:25 PM PDT

•  No, I think that sounds lame.

  We should just carry on using the "not insane wingnuts or swaggering cowboys" frame.  Sticking with the basic "party of grown-ups" frame also works for me.

  Trying to make this masculine/feminine fails to communicate anything worthwhile, in my opinion.  I see the point you're making, but rather than rendering it in a gender-role idiom, I think it is better summed up as a "capable and concerned" frame as compared with the Republicans' "incompetent and self-interested".

  by Loquatrix on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:42:06 PM PDT

  •  This frame isn't going to go away if we ignore it

    It needs to be countered one way or another. Ignoring it will allow it to continue to affect people's judgement on a level that they cannot consciously evaluate.

    Gender roles are deeply ingrained in our society's structure. People naturally assume that leadership roles are masculine. That assumption is increasingly challenged however, and I think it might be worth riding that political wave. Maybe not, though. Maybe we'd be better off trying to deconstruct the male:female::Republican:Democrat frame entirely. I'm not sure--it's worth debating. But simply saying that this issue ought not be confronted is ceding the Republicans a huge advantage.

    by Heresiarch514 on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:41:09 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

      Maybe we'd be better off trying to deconstruct the male:female::Republican:Democrat frame entirely.

      I think it's a mark of an underdeveloped society that it holds onto ancient gender stereotypes, and I think it's the job of the progressive community to obliterate the masculine:leadership frame.  I don't think America can get much better until we do.  Other civilized countries have elected women Presidents and Prime Ministers for decades because they long ago deconstructed the old frame.  We need to make America deconstruct the frame, too, rather than trying ourselves to work with it.

      Certainly, I don't think amending our own framing to cling to these ancient and counterproductive models is the right way to go.  Just because gender roles are "deeply ingrained in our society's structure" and "people naturally assume that leadership roles are masculine" doesn't mean we should encourage things to stay that way by identifying Republican "masculinity" as the problem and Democratic "femininity" as the cure for it.

      That will only make everything worse.  Like I said, H, I do see the point you're making, which goes to the business of defining ourselves as different from Republicans, but I don't think (a) assigning gender roles to broad party politics is a good idea when we've spent the last century trying to get rid of gender roles, and (b) reaffirming that "leadership" equals "masculinity" (even indirectly, as you would be doing by accepting the "feminine" tag while Democrats are out of leadership), are steps forward.

      by Loquatrix on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 08:50:01 AM PDT

      •  But if we win as a feminized party

        it would make a huge impact in the masculine:leadership assumption. Part of adopting the feminine frame for the Democratic party would be standing up and saying "So what's wrong with having women in charge?" Calling them out, making them make their sexist claims out loud, instead of burying them in innuendo. Making our party strong AND feminine would help advance the cause of gender equality, and force Republicans into the awkward role of trying to perpetuate gender stereotypes--which are the real problem, not gender itself--as such stereotypes become more and more marginalized.

        by Heresiarch514 on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:55:26 AM PDT

    •  I have a suggestion.

      Read this thread first.

      Dems can call the lock-stepping Reps out for being empty suits who have been selected to fill their positions for their lack of character, and ease of manipulation by Karl and Delay, etc. If we reveal the sick inner workings of the GOP structure, it may be possible to bring 'em down en masse. Take Connie Mack IV of Florida as a perfect example. He's carrying on an affair with Mary Bono, in the midst of a divorce in which his wife airs his dirty linen. He has no smarts, no common sense, no decency, doesn't live in the district from which he was elected (a la Santorum), and, reading about him you can see that he was selected and groomed to fill Porter Goss's seat merely on the basis of name recognition and a modicum of presentableness, arrogant ambition (sense of aristocratic entitlement), coachability, and an apparent willingness to vote in lockstep, as he's ordered to do by his superiors. Without the GOP propping him up, he's nothing.

      (As an aside, I hate the DLC for helping Duckworth beat Cegelis, for similar reasons; Cegelis was a bootstrapper who had more local support.  See this discussion on that: very telling, and worrisome that we have to fight the same tendency in our own party :-(

      Thanks for this diary. I definitely think you've opened up a keyhole into the Luntz playbook that we must counteract. The Dems really need to listen to Lakoff and use language and framing to help the citizens to get back to reality.

      by Halcyon on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 03:17:11 AM PDT

•  It Might Work But I Doubt It Will Get Tested

  I'm actually quite amazed at how far gone we seem to be. The massacre at Haditha barely made a dent in the fetishization (is that a word?) of the military.

  There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing."

  http://worldcantwait.org

  by WorldCantWait on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:59:45 PM PDT

  •  I'm really glad

    to hear someone say this  

    fetishization ( is that a word? ) of the military

    because it is getting almost ludicrous - everyone has to bend over backwards not to speak ill of the military ( God bless'em, heh heh!). I understand that we are trying not to repeat the reported demonization of the troops after Vietnam and I'm sure to get heat for this, but Haditha ought to put a dent in the reputation of the military.

    So I thank you for the newly minted word ( if it is )to describe this rather creepy attitude!

    by Dvalkure on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:31:02 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, it's a bit creepy

      On one hand, they do risk their lives to protect us. On the other, they kill for a living. Is this really something we should be glorifying? It is just too easy to denounce anyone who speaks against the military, no one is willing to say anything bad about them.

      by Heresiarch514 on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:48:19 AM PDT

      •  Firefighters risk their lives to protect us

        and die doing it, every year. So do EMTs and the mountain SAR teams, and do it without killing, and often as all-volunteers who get even worse pay and benefits and less gratitude than the military.

        Why is there no Memorial Day for Rescue Workers? Why don't we have ribbons for firefighters and huge memorials to them, instead of maybe a little plaque on the side of the firehouse that they paid for themselves, huh?

        And I never asked anyone to go out and attack and kill strangers at the risk of their own lives for me, that I can recall.

        I come from a several-generations military family where this was used to bludgeon women into shutting up and putting up with abuse, "We're saving you from the Reds and the gooks who would rape you otherwise, so you have to worship us and never criticize us," from my father and grandfather, so I know this Barryaran mindset intimately.

        by bellatrys on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 04:42:48 AM PDT

    •  It's those at the top who need to be

      demonized; not the boots on the ground. If the training were better, and the racism and devaluation of humanity not promoted from the top down; and the mission were not meaningless, then these atrocities would not be the norm. But, it's true, atrocities are a part of war, always.

      The truly frightening trend in our society is the combining of militarism and religion, as WorldCantWait has been diarying the Battlecry movement. The mysogynistic, militaristic indoctrination of a broad swath of youth in the middle regions of the country is something coasters tend to ignore at our peril. Read up on this in Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg.

      by Halcyon on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 03:33:01 AM PDT

      •  It's not just corruption at the top

        I have serious problems with military culture at all levels. Granted, abuse at the top is what lets things like Abu Ghraib happen, but they still wouldn't happen if the grunts hadn't been brutalized as part of their indoctrination.

        by Heresiarch514 on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 11:14:53 AM PDT

•  Well, I miss people like Pat Schroeder and Bella

  Abzug who would give a strong feminine/feminist response to the Rethug crap.

  We seem to lack such voices male or female these days. Pelosi stutters and struts and hems and haws. If it were Pat Schroeder she'd say in no uncertain terms things like "Where's our soldier's armor?" and "NSA spying stinks".

  I miss those voices, that to some extent fit your frame here.

  by doinaheckuvanutjob on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 01:18:35 AM PDT

  •  And the best thing is they'd never back down nor

    be afraid of any of the ridiculous Rethug accusations. They'd stand up to it with ease, grace and force.

    by doinaheckuvanutjob on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 01:20:07 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, nothing like growing up a feminist woman

      to teach you how to brush off accusations of shrillness.

      by Heresiarch514 on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:49:29 AM PDT

•  The Lysistrata Effect

  Long ago, the women of Sparta were sick and tired of their men always going off to war, so they decided to stop having sex with them until the men-folk got the message.

  I think it took about a year, after which the men were in a sad state.

  It'd be an interesting test of how committed Republicans were to "abstinence-only", if the decision wasn't theirs to make.

  And they had to watch all the non-Pubbies have all the lovin'.

  pause

  On second thought...it wouldn't be any different than they have it now. :)

  by cskendrick on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 01:40:32 AM PDT

•  Ah, those Neanderthal men

  always trying to compensate for their lack of a manly manhood.

  by elouise on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 08:53:20 PM PDT

•  I wonder whether...

  ...a gender-framed counter-narrative would be politically efficacious. An unfortunate truth of the matter is the fact that conservative ideology is so effectively cloaked in overblown rhethoric that conceals the more overt misogynistic and paternalistic content. Explicitly appropriating the label as an identity category is a recipe for disaster, in my opinion. That is, unless the terms of discourse had already undergone a radical shift.

  That said, I agree with your fundamental analysis of right-wing rhetoric, and the feminizing aspect of their propaganda. So, all in all, very interesting thoughts. Keep with it.

  by The Partisan Against The Clock on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:02:17 PM PDT

  •  We can't just wait

    for the terms of discourse to shift--we have to make them shift. I think it wouldn't be too hard to bring the misogynistic aspects of the Republicans to the fore--I don't think they are as deeply buried as you suggest.

    by Heresiarch514 on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:56:55 PM PDT

    •  Oh, agreed

      I don't think they're very deeply buried, and I agree that the misogynistic aspects of republican ideology can be (and perhaps has already been) brought to the fore, as you say.

      The question is how, and to what end, to shift the terms of discourse. I just question whether framing in terms of gender dichotomy is wise, given that we must simultaneously shift the terms of discourse (which, if Saussure, Foucault, Benveniste and the like are correct (and I read way too much of their ilk, which may colour my opinions), is extremely difficult to do in the first place, and impossible to predict its outcome). Or we could create a counter-narrative independent of the standing gender dichotomy, and on more friendly discursive ground.

      I guess I'm just wary of using of a master signifier that is already so overdetermined as gender. But at the same time, the misogynistic and patriarchal tendencies of the republican party ought to be combatted fiercely; I just think the terminological overdermination of gender might backfire.

      by The Partisan Against The Clock on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 07:15:41 AM PDT

      •  I see your point

        The nice thing about overdetermination is that it means every possible iteration of meaning exists simultaneously, allowing one to pick and choose fairly freely. If we wish to create the image of a powerful but still caring feminine authority figure, we don't have to invent it--it's already there. It just needs to be brought to the fore.

        Whereas attempting to create a narrative independent of gender--well, we'd have to start from scratch. I have a friend who does kali, the filipino stick fighting. It's a very rhythmic martial art, very patterned. I once said to him, I'm not sure I want to learn a martial art that has such a predictable beat--it seems awfully easy to counter. He replied, every fight will have a rhythm to it. Learning kali teaches you how to be aware of that rhythm, and use it to your advantage.

        by Heresiarch514 on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 11:23:29 AM PDT

        •  There's issues with overdetermination

          Yes, every possible meaning-iteration inheres simultaneously, and that is our opening. But I'm of the frame of mind that discursive innovation, rather than reappropriation, is a more effective tactic for bringing to light these latent meanings. That is to say, I think that overdetermination renders reappropriation unpredictable and gives it a somewhat nasty tendency to backslide into the dominant form.

          While I recognize that rampant neologizing is not necessarily the solution, one need only look at the DKos discourse to see discursive innovation that if nothing else generates confusion from an outside perspective. There's a short essay by Theodor Adorno where he notes that the most effictive means by which what little youth protest there was in Germany during WWI was the invention of argots and jargons that were unfamiliar to the powers that were.

          Personally, I'm an advocate of gender-neutrality and gender-equality, so there is a part of me that reacts viscerally to the intentional creation of a gendered image. To do otherwise would require more work, but not starting from scratch, I think. I mean, we have the concept of community, which is neither male nor female; collective in general. Who says we need a personified or personifiable image?

          ...And I think such images are also available for illumination...

          by The Partisan Against The Clock on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 11:32:13 AM PDT

•  Ideas are dead. I think our strongest

  attack is to say, "of course, this is coming from a party/man/woman who hasn't had a good idea since Goldwater."

  by mwchicago04 on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 04:19:46 AM PDT

•  Don't get so excited, bad for reproductiveness

  You cute little Democrats shouldn't get your little heads so excited about politics and the like.

  You'll use your bodies' energies up in harmful hysterics, and you won't be as able to help nurture our Future Republicans.

  by el cid on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 05:56:08 AM PDT

•  Movie Bullies/Creeps/Jerks/Bad Guys

  Think about Anthony Michael Hall's character in "Edward Scissorhands". Or 'Rommel' in "Better Off Dead". Or Judge Smails in "Caddyshack". Or the team owner who wants the team to fail in "Major League". Or the guy who'll get the company/money if Adam Sandler/Richard Pryor fail in their wacky contest in "Billy Madison"/"Brewster's Millions". The list goes on and on.

  What are the characteristics of these characters? They're all jerks. Snobs. Pr*cks. They're all prideful, arrogant, smug, condescending, abusive, humorless, cruel and hateful. They take pleasure in hurting others and offend at will, but are cowards when real courage is needed. They suck up to those above them and abuse those below.

  The only difference is, in the movie version of the 2000 election, the Supreme Court wouldn't have handed our country over to these guys.

  The people in charge, and their many fawning supporters, use cruel, condescending language to abuse those they perceive as "weaker" than them. In the movies, these jerks inevitably get their comeuppance. In life, they're now in control.

  All you have to do is listen to the tone of voice of people like Rush and Hannity and Coulter. They aren't sharing with you. They don't consider you a fellow American on a common journey of making America great. Their voices drip with scorn and superiority and hatred. They assume the worst and accuse their perceived enemies of every kind of horror.

  When you think of the evil sh*t Karl Rove has pulled -- is it really any different than the stunts the movie bullies pull, when they get worried that the good guy "might actually pull it off", so they sabotage the good guy's car or frame him or otherwise pull a dirty trick in an attempt to win at all costs?

  Too many Americans are in a daze -- maybe they're worried that, if they don't stand behind the bully and go "YEAH!", that the bully will turn around and start making fun of them. Nevertheless, we've got to change the tone of the discourse. Tough guys might be entertaining for a while, but sooner or later, Lady Liberty is going to have to settle down with a "nice guy".

  It's time for Lloyd Dobbler to make a comeback.

  by John Clavis on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 07:29:42 AM PDT

  •  PS

    I think focussing on Republicans as bullies/jerks, rather than working on labeling ourselves as feminine, might be a strategy to consider.

    Part of how (and I hate to use this example) the creationists debate is that they try to make the whole conversation about evolution and never discuss the nitty-gritty of their own pathetic excuse for a theory. Similarly, rather than having a soul-searching self-analysis, let's simply change the language used to talk about the right.

    Movie comparisons work, I think -- I mean, does anyone think Ted Knight's 'Judge Smails' character from "Caddyshack" wasn't a diehard Republican?

    Keith Olbermann has already started along those lines by occasionally referring to Bill O'Reilly as "Ted Baxter" -- Ted Knight's blowhard newsreader from "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" (I believe -- before my time).

    America always roots for the underdog. All we have to do is properly depict the corrupt, bloated, incestuous Republican Congress/White House gang as the bunch of bullies and jerks they are, and give the people some "good guys" to vote for.

    by John Clavis on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 07:41:34 AM PDT

  •  PS

    I think focussing on Republicans as bullies/jerks, rather than working on labeling ourselves as feminine, might be a strategy to consider.

    Part of how (and I hate to use this example) the creationists debate is that they try to make the whole conversation about evolution and never discuss the nitty-gritty of their own pathetic excuse for a theory. Similarly, rather than having a soul-searching self-analysis, let's simply change the language used to talk about the right.

    Movie comparisons work, I think -- I mean, does anyone think Ted Knight's 'Judge Smails' character from "Caddyshack" wasn't a diehard Republican?

    Keith Olbermann has already started along those lines by occasionally referring to Bill O'Reilly as "Ted Baxter" -- Ted Knight's blowhard newsreader from "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" (I believe -- before my time).

    America always roots for the underdog. All we have to do is properly depict the corrupt, bloated, incestuous Republican Congress/White House gang as the bunch of bullies and jerks they are, and give the people some "good guys" to vote for.

    by John Clavis on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 07:42:00 AM PDT

  •  Not just bullies and jerks,

    But incompetent, irresponsible bullies and jerks who have no interest in serving the public trust.  Hells Angels have more of a sense of decency and responsibility than these guys.

    by sagra on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 07:59:59 AM PDT

    •  Agreed

      I agree. I think that misanthropy and selfishness are also usually a part of any movie assh*le.

      In fact, a good way to clearly denote the character's lack of... well, lack of character... is to show them blatantly mocking or exploiting a charity event or other notion of kindness.

      "Ha! What an idiot he is for passing up that well-paying job to go work for sick kids! What a moron!"

      Think of Bill Murray's character in "Groundhog Day," BEFORE he transforms. When Andie MacDowell tells him her major was in French poetry, he laughs in her face and calls it a waste of time.

      When you read about Tom DeLay's "Capital Athletic Foundation", and how it wasn't really a charity that helped anybody, and instead was used for nefarious money laundering purposes ( http://www.statesman.com/... ), doesn't he sound just like a scumbag character in a movie?

      by John Clavis on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 08:18:38 AM PDT

      •  More scumbaggy than most movie characters.

        They're characatures of movie scumbags.

        BTW, Groundhog Day is my favorite Zen movie ever.  ^_^

        by sagra on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 08:23:58 AM PDT

        •  Apologies for the crappy spelling.

          n/t

          by sagra on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 08:25:36 AM PDT

•  Not just a republican phenom ...

  ... but noticed in the comments sections of some of the more liberal blogs when "issues that affect the ladies" pop up from time to time.  Lately, I was told to calm down and I must have sand in my vagina, after voicing what I believed was a reasoned argument.  But who knows, maybe the sand skewed my view.  Anyhoo, great post, good thoughts.

  by Posture on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 08:37:52 AM PDT

•  I don't mean to be a dick (!), but...

  ... This language is what boys have ALWAYS (= as long as I've been alive) used "insults a la girl/gay" to put down other boys.

  It's worth noting, I suppose, that this UBIQUITOUS male behavior translates up the chain to the political party level, but there's absolutely nothing NEW about it. Boys have always put other boys down in this manner.

  Is it wrong? Sure. Should it stop? Of course. But getting 60 year old men who've been using those sorts of insults for 50+ of those years is a fool's errand, imo. Put the kibosh on this aspect of boys' behavior WHEN THEY'RE STILL BOYS.

  My $.02

  by punditician on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 09:23:07 AM PDT

  •  True, it's used against men too

    Calling boys girlie is a time-honored method of keeping the boys in line. Basically, it's the threat "If you don't agree with me, I'm going to disrespect you and sneer at you just like I do at girls. You want that?" Given that men have more to lose by being seen as feminine than women do, it is even more effective in keeping men in line than women.

    There are two counters to this. One is to say, "Actually, your conception of manhood is stupid and wrong. In fact, if you disagree with me, that makes you less of a man." This can be effective, but it's hard to, say, promote a universal healthcare plan, or fight for gay rights using this strategy, because it's just going to sound false to people. Nearly everyone thinks that beating up gays is manly--people disagree about whether it is good, but it is unquestionably manly.

    The other counterargument is to say "Yeah, my position is kind of girlie. It's still right. What's your point?" This forces them to either explicitly equate feminine and bad, or to try another tactic. Either way, we win.

    by Heresiarch514 on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 11:36:56 AM PDT

    •  Hm. Surely you can appreciate *practically*...

      ... the CERTAIN defeat that we'll have upon saying (something equivalent to) "my position is kind of girlie" ?

      The utility of such an approach (imo) rests almost entirely on the assumption that we live in a perfect (wrt sexism) world. And that is grossly not the case.

      In the actual world, (straight) guys want men to be manly, and so do straight women. Which leads us to your prior suggestion: to change the very concept of manliness.

      I think this suggestion has a great deal of merit, and is what I alluded to in my OP when I said we need to work not on 60 yo men, but rather 10 yo boys - because that's when the bad concept of manliness written in the soft concrete, to solidify within a few years.

      But that's a long-term project. For the short-term, with the present bad conception of manliness deeply entrenched in the American psyche, it doesn't seem feasible to go with anything remotely resembling "John Kerry for President: Girlie and damn proud of it!".

      The feasibility of such an approach is better thought of as a goal, not a reflection of how things are now.

      Hopefully that makes sense - I get lost in my own analogies and such sometimes - lol

      by punditician on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 11:58:09 AM PDT

      •  It's not necessary

        to "change the very concept of manliness"--every meaning of manliness we could possibly want already exists. The overdetermination of gender, remember. All we have to do is bring the certain conception of manly that favors us to the fore. As people upthread have already mentioned, the asshole, overbearing man-villian is already an incredibly commen trope of TV and movies.  All we have to do is invoke him, casting the Republicans in his image.

        The "certain" defeat of staking claim to a feminine identity doesn't seem all that certain to me. In case you haven't heard, there are more women than men. Most of them, I'd imagine, think that a woman would run the US rather well. So would some the men, I'd think. Sounds like a majority to me.

        Besides, feminizing the party isn't a matter of campaign speeches. It's a matter of seeding the popular unconscious, embracing certain constructions and turns of phrase (nurturing, caring, preserving). It has nothing to do with individual politicians and everything to do with the party as a whole.

        by Heresiarch514 on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 09:17:47 PM PDT

    •  Look what I found:

      Domination Tecniques: What They Are & How To Combat Them. It's the article about Berit Ås's work diaried by high5. It would be great if you took this and diaried on this idea some more. You've really hit on an important way to take back our dignity, by exposing the GOP method of ridiculing and marginalizing the Dems. There's nothing like  calling a spade a spade, or pouring salt on a slug!

      by Halcyon on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 02:59:16 PM PDT

      •  Sure, Halcyon!

        Lemme run off and do all the dirty work! Thanks!  =)

        by Heresiarch514 on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 08:54:50 PM PDT