tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post4460932232483340607..comments2024-03-06T05:30:41.694-05:00Comments on Pho's Akron Pages: Fear. Loathing and Gender on the Campaign TrailScott Piephohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05849171870929674248noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-39226017229495802952008-04-27T23:58:00.000-04:002008-04-27T23:58:00.000-04:00While I have seen it mentioned that men may have a...While I have seen it mentioned that men may have a different point of view on this than a woman, I think it is rather disingenuous to state that the only counter to your argument was:"You're a man so your arguments don't count." <BR/><BR/>Also, I never read anyone refusing to acknowledge that there are dangers to overusing the label of misogyny. And, I don't get your need to cling to the word sexism but so steadfastly refuse the word misogyny. If you want to call the cover Sexist, fine by me. I am glad we both agree the cover photo is sexist.<BR/><BR/>Now, your example that Hillary is actually "ruthless" that's why she is portrayed as ruthless. Ruthless is a pretty powerful word. How do you know she is actually ruthless? Have you had personal interactions with her? or are you just going by what someone else told you? Maybe someone who thought it might make for a better story to play up a stereotype? We don't know any of these candidates personally, we know Barack and Hillary as well as we know Brad and Angelina. We don't know anything really. We take the press at their word and we all know their word isn't that good.<BR/><BR/>To review the controversy, TNR ran a photo of a manic looking Hillary with large type "The Voices In Her Head" I did not read the article but if those two things together do not imply mental illness (hysteria) I am not sure what does. There are plenty of photos of Hillary looking normal and often darn presidential. So, I think it would be easy to find a better photo to illustrate what you believe was the magazines intentions without being so disrespectful. Heck, I bet one of TNRs snazzy caracitures would have been perfect. TNR was looking for shock value and controversy. They wanted to push buttons.<BR/><BR/> You apparently have read the article and believe the only thing going on here is TNR saying "Hillary can't run a campaign". While I believe you that Hillary seems to suck at campaigning, I do not believe that is the only message being sent. I think the message also includes the undertone that powerful women are crazy - which isn't so far removed from "don't vote for her she's crazy!" <BR/><BR/>Yes, we need to be careful how labels are applied but that doesn't mean don't apply them. The only time I remember anyone in the press mentioning sexism was the "cleavage comment" that Hillary received early in the campaign. Obviously, there is more to sexism than cleavage.(but cleavage is an obvious one) Many believe there are aspects of misogyny in this cover, the fact that you so steadfastly refuse to be open minded about that is troubling. Instead of yelling out "you are wrong", why don't you try to understand the people who feel that way. In the end, The real issue isn't whether the cover is or isn't misogynistic, that cover is over and done, the issue is how do we move forward together.<BR/><BR/>To be fair, I believe women would be offended by this photo no matter what serious women was featured in that pose with those headlines. The fact that it is Hillary is a sidenote. So, when you speak of the political arena, I really don't know what to tell you. I'd be just as irritated if they did this to the woman who wrote Harry Potter or the one who divorced Paul McCartney. You might be able to convince me it was okay to do to Britney. But only because she does appear to have been officially diagnosed mentally ill. Of course, then I would tell you they were exploiting the sick. <BR/><BR/>Pho, Jill and Lisa, thanks for creating on darn good dialogue about such an important topic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-20928000888058365712008-04-27T15:45:00.000-04:002008-04-27T15:45:00.000-04:00Glass City Gal, has a name and she is tired of men...Glass City Gal, has a name and she is tired of men assuming that trying to have a rational, adult conversation about sexsim or racism means that she's a Hillary fanatic.<BR/><BR/>My point is similar to Jill's, if it was just Jill stating she found this cover to be a clear example of misogyny it would be one thing, then it would be a matter of her individual threshold being different. However...many women and a few men saw it exactly as Jill did. Not all of them Hillary supporters by the way which is an important fact that seems to have been missed in the attempt to just brush off the concerns as being ones by Clinton supporters.<BR/><BR/>That was my main motivation for jumping into this was it's more than just about Jill, that was being lost. I did not expect things to get to the point where I'd be harrassed by email or have to ban/delete posts. <BR/><BR/>Just as we can't seem to talk about race, it appears we can't talk about sexism either. Until we can move beyond the "me syndrome" of stopping to reflect on how others are perceiving something and truly question our own impressions to see if it is possible to discover where the truth really lies, we'll be exactly as we are right now. With both sides discounting each other...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-92131411931834510502008-04-26T13:19:00.000-04:002008-04-26T13:19:00.000-04:00OK FINE. BUT YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH JILL WITHOUT D...OK FINE. BUT YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH JILL WITHOUT DISPARAGING HER FAITH. IN FACT IT WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU COULD DISAGREE WITH JILL WITHOUT DISPARAGING HER. AND IT WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU COULD OPPOSE HILLARY'S CANDIDACY WITHOUT HATIN'. <BR/><BR/>ANYWAY, BRING SMACK LIKE THAT AROUND HERE AND YOU GET DELETED EVERY TIME.<BR/><BR/>BY THE WAY. WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?Scott Piephohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05849171870929674248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-70536959460701643062008-04-26T12:03:00.000-04:002008-04-26T12:03:00.000-04:00I'M NOT ANTI-SEMITIC AND I'M NOT HICKMANI'M JUST T...I'M NOT ANTI-SEMITIC <BR/>AND I'M NOT HICKMAN<BR/><BR/>I'M JUST TIRED OF JILL AND THE GLASS CITY GAL BEING CRYBABIES FOR HILLARY!<BR/><BR/>AFTER ALL YOU AND ERIC ARE PRIME EXAMPLES OF MISOGYNISTIC SEXIST MEN. AREN'T YOU? <BR/><BR/>THAT'S WHAT THE CRYBABIES WANT EVERYONE TO BELIEVE. IS IT TRUE?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-43533371851216642592008-04-26T11:56:00.000-04:002008-04-26T11:56:00.000-04:00JILL:If you love me, can you acknowledge that I ha...JILL:<BR/><BR/>If you love me, can you acknowledge that I have legitimate concerns? Can you do that, just for me? Can you acknowledge that just maybe we should be concerned about overclaiming sexism in the context of a political campaign? Or do you just always want to put the onus on the critic to prove he/she doesn't hate women?<BR/><BR/>How do I dismiss the complaints? I look at the evidence. I look at a long history of TNR covers that satirize their subjects. And I conclude that the cover isn't about hating women it's about illustrating a real concern about Hillary's campaign. Cheez I've only said that like five times.Scott Piephohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05849171870929674248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-16964422031580801102008-04-26T11:52:00.000-04:002008-04-26T11:52:00.000-04:00No, Hillary-Hater-Who-Has-to-be-Hickman. An anti-...No, Hillary-Hater-Who-Has-to-be-Hickman. An anti-Semetic blast at Jill isn't going to stay up on my blog. Cry about censorship all you want. That comment comes down every time.Scott Piephohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05849171870929674248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-56977731950698189892008-04-26T11:49:00.000-04:002008-04-26T11:49:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-75756797718238322372008-04-26T11:45:00.000-04:002008-04-26T11:45:00.000-04:00Scott - I love you, man, just like I love Eric.But...Scott - I love you, man, just like I love Eric.<BR/><BR/>But you are still missing my point - I can't speak for any other woman. Contrary to popular believe, I do not have multiple personalities. :)<BR/><BR/>Misogyny does not get attention only when you or I say it should. It does not DESERVE attention only when it meets a certain threshold of your sensitivity or mine.<BR/><BR/>We are bloggers. I have indicated where I see the threshold as deserving of attention - you think that threshold is so low as to be crying wolf.<BR/><BR/>I cannot disagree more.<BR/><BR/>Just as racism has seeped into so many elements of our daily lives, so has sexism AND misogyny. Yes - they are distinct. I stated that over at Plunderbund.<BR/><BR/>But where is the line? Well - we are hashing that out and we are not agreeing on where it is.<BR/><BR/>But I will not accept that someone's dubbing where I see misogyny as being too inconsequential or not misogynistic enough as to be worthy of pointing it out means 1) it's not misogyny or 2) I should not point it out for fear that no one will ever listen.<BR/><BR/>Scott - so many aren't listening now. I fail to see how my post did anything but - as you say yourself - raise consciousness about the need to discuss.<BR/><BR/>And as a blogger - well, I can live with that.<BR/><BR/>Again - I love you, man. I do not agree with your approach re: when to point out what I view as misogyny because you or others see it as crying wolf.<BR/><BR/>Lisa Renee linked to several others who felt exactly as I did - you might consider leaving comments at those blogs re: they are crying wolf or at least read what they've written and see if they do a better job in explaining - I know that I have not done the kind of job in that for you that you would prefer or like.<BR/><BR/>(I'm not being facetious - I really would like to know how you can dismiss the concerns of all those other folks who see what I see in that cover.)Jillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02175591212176951287noreply@blogger.com