I’m just going to put it right out there sexist as it sounds but I think woman are instinctively dare I say intuitively more socialist leaning than their masculine counterparts in the electorate.
I say this as a good thing; I think society is the looser when masculinity is allowed to dominate the balance of power. George bush with his sneer and swagger is what you get when men don’t, not just respect women, but accept that power need be administered by equal doses of testosterone and estrogen.
Our society believes that real men are capitalist, rugged individualist who pull themselves up by their bootstraps and drop dead on the job, socialist are nothing but a bunch of damned pussies.
Before I go any further I want to define socialism as social conscience rather than hang onto any particular philosophy. Still a commies a commie, eh?
If Hillary Clinton runs for President I’ll vote for her because she had the ovaries to propose a national health care system for the United States of America. The fatherland went postal, this was real war, our values as God fearing, Jesus loving defenders of home and family could see the wolves at the door, and boy did we shove it right back down her throat.
I used to ask management across the negotiating table why the business community in their loyalty to conservative thinking considered it a good idea to put the cost of health insurance on the backs of businesses that were trying to stay competitive rather than just accepting that health care should be a shared cost by everyone through taxes. I got a lot of condescending smirks, but never a well thought out answer.
I think that if the Democrats want to win the next election they ought to offer what the nation is really longing for right now and that’s a woman’s touch.
33 Comments
Regarding this statement:
“George bush with his sneer and swagger is what you get when men don’t, not just respect women, but accept that power need be administered by equal doses of testosterone and estrogen.“
Bush has no respect for anyone outside of those few he considers his peers. He has no respect for men or women that he considers beneath him. He is not anti-feminist, he is simply evil.
When you said socialism is more a social conscience than a philosophy that touched on something I’ve thought for a long time. And that is just that women tend to think pragmatically about social issues while men tend to think ideologically. Sorry if some find this to be offensive stereotyping but it has been my experience.
It seems like men are more concerned with the “big” issues like honor or justice, or doing the “right” thing, while women tend to be more focused on just getting everyone fed.
And while women tend to be denigrated for not “thinking big” in this way, I think this pragmatic approach also leads them to being more flexible about solutions because they are less attached to having to align the means of getting something done with any particular ideological system.
So how people get fed and who gets the credit for it ends up being less important than just getting it done. Of course there are always exceptions to this — and we’ll probably hear some of them in response to this post — but as a tendency, I think it’s a real thing, and is important to consider because this difference in focus is also why it seems impossible at times for men and women to work together on social issues. It really is like speaking two different languages.
As for if women should be in charge, well I’ve just always thought that if God were a woman, pleasure would not be so suspect as it is under daddy, and we’d all be having a lot more fun, especially bodily-based kinds of fun like sex, food, sensuous clothing, baths, massage, all that type stuff. I think we’d be more relaxed about it.
So I’ve also always wondered why men are so resistant to the idea of females in positions of social authority. It seems like they would have a better time of it than they do now.
Why a male god means more restrictions on these things is hard to understand, but maybe it has something to do with patrilinial inheritance and having to control sex so you know who your children are.
I think woman are instinctively dare I say intuitively more socialist leaning than their masculine counterparts in the electorate.
Peggy Noonan? Condi Rice? Madeleine “the cost of sanctions is worth it” Albright? Phyllis Schlafly? Hillary “Supported the Iraq War Resolution” Clinton? Laura Bush? Newly confirmed Judge Rodgers-Brown? Ann Coulter? Caty Couric? Candy Crowley? Nancy Grace? Margaret Thatcher?
Please give me a break.
Pedestalization of women, invocation of “nurturance” as intrinsic female traits that somehow impart greater social consciousness or social justice awareness to women?
I absolutely disagree. I think your statement is naive.
Feminism is not simply an appeal to plumbing and an invocation of the need for more estrogen in government.
The numerous examples of reactionary, idiotic, poisonous, stupid female assholes in power and in the electorate… should make it clear that “plumbing worship” just like “melanin level worship” (Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzales, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Ward Connerly, need I go on?) is NOT the way to go.
I have disagreed with you in many other places, but I don’t here so I’m going to stand up and say so.
Feminism is not simply an appeal to plumbing and an invocation of the need for more estrogen in government.
Right on, brother!
I don’t want to be put on a pedestal, no way, no how. Feminism is about equity, pure and simple, equity of oppotunity, equity of responsibility. It is NOT about equality as far as I can see. Equality implies sameness, and that is the problems with all over-reaching systems of power: they require the same-ness — what I personally am striving for is equity, which to my mind implies acceptance of difference, not the deification of certain qualities, or goddess forbid, physical attributes.
Gernalizations are worthless because if you can find ONE exception they turn out to be untrue….
Thanks militarytracy.
my reply to you is the same as my reply to brinnian – we may disagree on specific interpretations, strategies, tactics, framing, rhetoric, events…
But we will, I hope, never disagree on the basics, the fundamental underpinnings contained in that simple little word…equality.
Thanks.
I am, as I have said before and will say again, a staunch and outspoken feminist/humanist/socialist.
Those terms mean very specific things to me, none of which have much to do with sexual plumbing, skin color, religious, ethnic, or whatever heritage.
They have EVERYTHING to do with basic, simple, codified, absolute equality before the law, in the workplace, in education, in access to resources for all of the above.
I may disagree with you about interpretations of specific events (pie, ads, pornography definitions, specific leaders’ speeches or writings) and we may disagree on strategy or tactics or frames, but I will never give up my commitment to those ideals, no matter how much we on the same side may quarrel about those subsidiary issues and interpretations.
peace
If you have not read it then you might be iterested. Yes I think you have a good point. Women may be less concerned with world conquest in terms of owning the wealth, but more likely to, as the poster says above, want to make sure everyone is fed.
After paying for my wedding ring that I wanted, my husband may be inclined to disagree. It was my second wedding ring, I was in a car accident one snowy day and the only that was broken was my ring. My first ring seemed to display my social conscience and my belief that material things weren’t all that important. My second ring though…….all that it says is that I’m queen and “Let them eat Ramen!”
RedDans just to intent on knuckle draggin and ass scratchin to give this any real thought. Besides he shouldn’t talk about his mom that way.
to disagree with him, what does that have to do with his mother? other than stirring up a comment war?
I sort of agree with everyone, including Red Dan ;).
I have a British friend who, when I or anyone would try out that “women are more practical, less warlike than men” thing, would just look and mention… Maggie Thatcher. And, of course, others though history, with female leaders being not really that different from male ones.
So, I’m not sure that it’s the gender exactly that matters, when it gets to the point of being in high office and acting on matters related more to family and other issues.
And I quote myself
“more socialist leaning than their masculine counterparts”
Leaning, I didn’t say woman are fairies and men are trolls.
Ol Dan drags out some right wing snarlers and takes a cheap shot at Hillary and thinks hes said something.
Tauri said:
And while women tend to be denigrated for not “thinking big” in this way, I think this pragmatic approach also leads them to being more flexible about solutions because they are less attached to having to align the means of getting something done with any particular ideological system.
Right, women are doing everything they can to make things work no matter how big of a mess men make of it, women are the ultimate pragmatist putting a brave face on an often terrifying reality.
You know, I’m a midwest raised man in my 40s. My dad was a Republican, in the old-fashioned work hard and prosper myth sort of way. I love Batman, Billy Jack, Highlander and really violent video games. I have plenty of anger and testosterone to pour out, that is an integral part of who I am. I love heavy metal and Johnny Cash.
Yet …
you can find my posts from LSF here.
I think they speak for themselves. Human potential doesn’t fall into lazy and eazy catagories. Does it make you feel better, more superior to imagine that you’re “more nurturing”?
I rage and weep for all of the lost potential, all of the promise and possibilities resulting from lazy Manichean thinking. I’m sick of it. You want your fucking either/or? Does it make you feel better?
Play into their fucking games. Ignore that we all have good/bad, order/chaos, nurture/aggression in ALL of us.
I wonder why I bother when I read shit like this. I wonder why the good people in my life spent their energy sharing with me, touching me, helping me see thru new eyes, since we’re just our biology, our pre-destined ROLES.
I can’t fucking believe I wasted my time reading this.
There’s alot of idealism in that statement, which kind of backs up the point I was making earlier.
It would be nice if all people had all qualities in equal and balanced amounts, and maybe that is what we are striving for, but, if you are going to tell me that the men and women in your world exhibit no diifference in behavior, and that those differences show no tendency to line up along gender lines, sorry, but I don’t believe it. Where is that ideal world you live in?
If we are not allowed to even point out that these differences exist, how does that in any way help promote taking the steps needed to fulfill the potential and create the well-rounded person?
And nowhere in this diary have I seen any mention of a belief that biology is destiny. I’d certainly not support that notion, but, we still have to deal with what is here and now. And in this world it is simply ridiculous to say that men and women do not show behaviors that line up with gender. We are talking about what is, not what should be (ideally) or what has to be (destiny).
And also how to make the best use of what is (like women’s tendency to organize around socialism) to get eventually to what might be (like social equality).
I also interpret from your statement that you are feeling personally attacked somehow, and nobody has done that as far as I can tell.
You said:
Does it make you feel better, more superior to imagine that you’re “more nurturing”?
Er, no, it’s one quality in a range of qualities that people have in differing amounts, so what? Does the suggestion that women are more nurturing — or to put it more accurately, devote more of their time providing direct caregiving — make you feel inferior? It sure seems to make you angry.
Superior/ inferior, either/ or, those are your categories, and it’s a wrong interpretation, in my opinion.
I reacted like I did b/c this is just a mirror of the right’s thinking. It’s counterproductive and has no basis in reality. Yes there are differences, but they are not based on our chromosomes. There are men who are nurturing, and women who are cold-blooded sociopaths. Isn’t the whole point of feminism to move us to a truly humanist society, where it’s our individual differences that matter, not broad and lazy generalizations.
I don’t like claims that ANY group is more “humane” or nurturing than another, and such claims are as worthless as statements that women are “weak” and “shrill” and fold under pressure.
I think I see where you are coming from. I guess the basis of our disagreement is that I do think behavioral differences are real and talking about it does not hurt.
Why or from where the differences come from, who knows? I support no particular arguments about nature/nurture because I don’t have enough information to come down on either side. My POV comes from what I see, what my experience in the world has been.
It seems like we live in a world where certain subjects are automatically taboo. Gender difference has become one of those subjects. I was a little surprised to see the reaction here, and it felt to me like people were posting these “drive by denials” so that we could all hush up a complex and sometimes uncomfortable issue by taking the tactic that if you just deny it enough, it will go away.
Yes, I agree it is about evolving to a truly humanist society, but in the here-and-now differences exist. Why is it wrong to suggest that these different strengths — embodied by individuals, yes, but also at times by groups — should be capitalized on for a common good?
Thank you for your comments, I was frankly surprised at the strength of disagreement over a light and humanly interesting topic but I guess I either did not make myself clear or I am just far more socially bankrupt than I thought.
And Im used to a pretty tough board.
Thanks again.
point out that I’ve been in some bruising battles elsewhere over gender issues, and it’s an sore issue with me. I took it out on you. Not fair.
I look foreward to the day when the differences between women, men and individuals are more easily identified as the result of who that person is.
It is good to discuss these things, and just punch me back if I come on too strong.
look FORWARD to the day when I can spell.
Keep on keeping on, Madman, your passion is great! I have not been in this blog world long, but your posts stood out to me right away. I mostly agree with you and enjoy your perspective on things. You are not a person I would want to push away, but my damn ego gets into it, and then I say dumb things.
These dialogs are hard sometimes since there are no faces and tones of voice to make the meaning clear, and I am still finding my way. If I seem touchy at times, its cuz I also have some old baggage that has nothing to do with anyone but me. I’ve learned something about myself from this exchange, thank you for that.
that’s actually one of the things I like about it. It removes some of the filters people put on themselves on the fly, reading the body language and expressions of people they are talking to. However, the instant feedback provides an incentive to refine and check your own thinking. It’s an interesting balance.
Thanks for the intelligent and understanding take on the diary, I was surprised at the overreaction of people to the idea that the ying and yang of life might have masculine and feminine qualities.
Thank you too.
Madman
Sheesh ! OK I read some of your stuff, it’s vague and whiney and I have no idea what you stand for or why specifically my words outrage you. I think maybe you are a disillusioned Republican rather than a centrist Democrat.
reading comprehension is not one of your talents, or critical thinking, or the ability to see the world in anything more than easy stereotypes.
you do not need me to stick up for you, so apologies in advance for my presumption.
Linchpin — DO NOT call him “whiney” in my presence. Not only is your post rude but full of assumptions about things and people you know nothing about– cut it out. I am giving you a ‘2’ for that comment because it is attacking a person (and I would do the same for anyone, but you just happen to be picking on someone who I respect immensely). Stop it.
Make your point without personal attacks.
Please tell me that you were possessed by an evil demon when you wrote this! If you weren’t then all I can say is unfuckingbelievable.
LOL, well in my view linchpin is an agitator, perhaps a familiar one… but still, a rather boring one.
Agitator, if you mean troll just say so I can handle it.
I am tired of fighting the gender war. I just want to be able to live my life, like everyone else. But I know I am too idealistic for this world…
For the love of god, can we please kill the “angel in the house” for good and all.
That’s what this diary sounds like to me.