Tuesday, November 28, 2006
More Thoughts on The Criticisms of Pelosi
Some of you who know me (or know about how this niebelung can get so easily mistaken for a troll in feminist left-blogostan) will know that I do not always cotton to the "when a woman pushes to get what she wants, she's considered a 'bitch' but when a man does the same thing, he's 'assertive' and that's an unfair double standard" argument ... because, as one who is generally bitchy rather than assertive, I would argue that being bitchy and being assertive are not the same thing, and that, as a whole, women are more likely to be bitchy rather than assertive. This is not due to any inherent difference in the sexes but rather in that us men are raised to be assertive and women are not. I think and hope this is changing, but even in my generation, men were taught how to be assertive and women were not.
That being said, I think with Pelosi, we have a clear cut case of a double standard: while a man doing exactly what Pelosi has done would be given a grace period to see how things worked out, Pelosi is being chastised for merely playing politics in the same way as the boys do. Even while pointing out that a double standard is involved, people like Borger, instead of even hiding behind "others might say" to criticize Pelosi, are openly sexist after their obligatory invocation that they are being unfair. What gives? Why the sexism? Why are people reacting differently to a woman in a position of authority than they would to a man? And why is this considered so acceptable, even if the media muttonheads are willing to admit it is a mite unfair?
*
Anyway, speaking of double standards: I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is a reason why we men don't stop and ask for directions -- because whenever we do, we get a response of "I know nothin'". Now the interesting question is why do we get a different response. Is it because people would rather give directions to women? Or is it simply because, cf. my above comments on assertiveness, we men simply are not trained to ask directions, so it becomes a viscious cycle wherein men are not trained in directions asking because it is unmanly, and because we don't know how to ask directions, we don't get results which re-enforces, via the sour grapes mechanism, the idea that asking directions is un-manly?
*
Anyhoo ... will the media stop acting as if Harmon's only sin was that she's too moderate or pro-Israeli (as if that's a sin) ... I know people who ain't that liberal even on domestic issues and who, when it comes to Israel, make Netanyahoo look like a dove, who don't like Harmon. Let's face it, even under the GOP-friendly spin that people voted the Dems. in not because they are happy with liberalism but because they specifically were unhappy with Bush & CO and the GOP establishment (the spin is GOP-friendly as it positions them to run new faces in 2008 and claim that it was only the old faces, not the GOP ideas, that were rejected ... we're already seeing this strategy with revisionism about what the Congressional entering class of 1994 stood for) -- in which case an establishment figure like Harmon ought not to have the mission critical chairship for which she is in line. Of course Pelosi here is between a rock and a hard place, considering the next two obvious choices are too PC to pass up but too problematic to put into place.
Personally, I would tap Harmon, but use threats to keep her in line (she has the capability to be a tough watchdog when she is pushed to do so) ... but if Pelosi does this, rather than having the media coo over her "strong leadership" as they did when Republican male leaders did such things, they will denounce her as being catty and vindictive like they did with the Hoyer/Murtha shtuss, which wasn't even the big deal the media's acting like it was.
Although, it seems with the so-called liberal media, the Dems. cannot win (where's our honeymoon? where's our favorable coverage like the GOP got in 1994?) -- and Pelosi, as a Dem. and a woman who is *gasp* from San Francisco (will someone please tell the media that, pace that wanker -- and I mean that "literally", that is to say figuratively ... did I even blog about how transcendentalism is philosophical Onanism? we, after being exposed to too much transcendentalism in high school, came up with this connection that transcendentalism was a philosophy that preferred self-indulgeance to interpersonal relationships and obligations, even fun ones ... kinda like Onan ... and the transcendentalist literature is, especially if you are a horny high schooler who isn't getting any except from Rosey Palme anyway, filled with references to masturbation --Thoreau, who must have been the Bobo Brooks of his day living near the east coast as he did, this country does not begin at the Apalachians or end at the Sierra Nevada, but does, as any map will tell you, include the coasts and other places outside Jeebusland), the double standards are out in force. Gevalt!
That being said, I think with Pelosi, we have a clear cut case of a double standard: while a man doing exactly what Pelosi has done would be given a grace period to see how things worked out, Pelosi is being chastised for merely playing politics in the same way as the boys do. Even while pointing out that a double standard is involved, people like Borger, instead of even hiding behind "others might say" to criticize Pelosi, are openly sexist after their obligatory invocation that they are being unfair. What gives? Why the sexism? Why are people reacting differently to a woman in a position of authority than they would to a man? And why is this considered so acceptable, even if the media muttonheads are willing to admit it is a mite unfair?
*
Anyway, speaking of double standards: I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is a reason why we men don't stop and ask for directions -- because whenever we do, we get a response of "I know nothin'". Now the interesting question is why do we get a different response. Is it because people would rather give directions to women? Or is it simply because, cf. my above comments on assertiveness, we men simply are not trained to ask directions, so it becomes a viscious cycle wherein men are not trained in directions asking because it is unmanly, and because we don't know how to ask directions, we don't get results which re-enforces, via the sour grapes mechanism, the idea that asking directions is un-manly?
*
Anyhoo ... will the media stop acting as if Harmon's only sin was that she's too moderate or pro-Israeli (as if that's a sin) ... I know people who ain't that liberal even on domestic issues and who, when it comes to Israel, make Netanyahoo look like a dove, who don't like Harmon. Let's face it, even under the GOP-friendly spin that people voted the Dems. in not because they are happy with liberalism but because they specifically were unhappy with Bush & CO and the GOP establishment (the spin is GOP-friendly as it positions them to run new faces in 2008 and claim that it was only the old faces, not the GOP ideas, that were rejected ... we're already seeing this strategy with revisionism about what the Congressional entering class of 1994 stood for) -- in which case an establishment figure like Harmon ought not to have the mission critical chairship for which she is in line. Of course Pelosi here is between a rock and a hard place, considering the next two obvious choices are too PC to pass up but too problematic to put into place.
Personally, I would tap Harmon, but use threats to keep her in line (she has the capability to be a tough watchdog when she is pushed to do so) ... but if Pelosi does this, rather than having the media coo over her "strong leadership" as they did when Republican male leaders did such things, they will denounce her as being catty and vindictive like they did with the Hoyer/Murtha shtuss, which wasn't even the big deal the media's acting like it was.
Although, it seems with the so-called liberal media, the Dems. cannot win (where's our honeymoon? where's our favorable coverage like the GOP got in 1994?) -- and Pelosi, as a Dem. and a woman who is *gasp* from San Francisco (will someone please tell the media that, pace that wanker -- and I mean that "literally", that is to say figuratively ... did I even blog about how transcendentalism is philosophical Onanism? we, after being exposed to too much transcendentalism in high school, came up with this connection that transcendentalism was a philosophy that preferred self-indulgeance to interpersonal relationships and obligations, even fun ones ... kinda like Onan ... and the transcendentalist literature is, especially if you are a horny high schooler who isn't getting any except from Rosey Palme anyway, filled with references to masturbation --Thoreau, who must have been the Bobo Brooks of his day living near the east coast as he did, this country does not begin at the Apalachians or end at the Sierra Nevada, but does, as any map will tell you, include the coasts and other places outside Jeebusland), the double standards are out in force. Gevalt!
# posted by alberich @ 6:10 PM 
