I've heard a lot of talk about how the only reason Trump is winning is because the media and his supporters are misogynists. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a lot of sexim in this country and it informs a lot of how people react to Hillary Clinton (and other women in politics). That said, there are two facts that come to mind that very cleanly explains the fact that this is not the only thing at play: 1) Trump one the Republican primary; 2) The Republican primary candidates were mostly men.
Let me explain a bit. If the only reason Trump had support was misogyny, how did he go up against 10 other men (and 1 woman) and come out on top? Was it that the other men weren't sexist? I don't think so. I mean, not that I have any presumptions about Republican Presidential candidates (as I exhaust my sarcasm allocation for the rest of September), but I suspect that several of them have sexist policy ideas. Also, the one woman, Carly Fiorina, dropped out after 2 primaries and very early on in the process. Furthermore, the argument that Trump is being competitive only because of the country's misogynistic ways is that Trump is benefiting because he's a man going up against a woman, in which case, the other 10 men would have been on equal footing with him. But he beat those other candidates. He beat them pretty easily too. He got nearly 45% of the popular vote and nearly 70% of the delegates. So... he's popular enough to become a Presidential nominee of a major party without the benefit of being up against a woman.
I'm not trying to say there isn't an impact of the misogynistic tendencies of the nation, but I would suggest there's much more to the Trump V Clinton situation than that. To suggest that there isn't, that most of the reason that Trump is doing well has to do with the news stations treating him different from Clinton because of their genders and the populace treating them different for the same reason, to suggest this is to ignore vital issues before us. Trump's supporters have baffled the news and the Left's pundits. There is no single simple explanation.
Clinton's detractors are not only against her for sexist reasons either. The more we suggest that everything is that simple and that all those who have ill-will toward Clinton only feel that way because they are sexist, the more we risk alienating even more of the populace. If you think Marvel movies should have villains that are more compelling and stay longer than one movie, and someone tells you that the only reason anyone could dislike Marvel movies is because the movies are sexist, you might not listen to the argument. If, on the other hand, someone tells you that Marvel movies are sexist and explains why, there's the chance of getting into a fruitful discussion, because they haven't told you that your points of view are wrong, especially considering your point of view has merit.
Dark Wind Rising
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Friday, September 16, 2016
Voting for the Good Rather than the Lesser of Two Evils
Ok, so, your read of the post header "voting for the food rather than the lesser of two evils"... what did you think it meant? I could have intended one of two meanings:
1) One of the two main parties' candidates is seen as good
2) Voting for a third party candidate
Answer... BOTH. This post is two posts in one!
Alright, so, starting with the obvious. I'm really quite happy that there are those out there, and I know quite a few, who are exceedingly pleased with Clinton for President. I'm not. This does not mean I'm sexist, stupid, unreasonable, die-hard-for-Bernie, single-minded, or in any other way wrong-headed. I have real and rational reasons for not being in favor of Clinton just as those friends of mine that are in favor of her surely have reasons they were not in favor of Sanders. There are political views and stands that are not based in sexism. I will be voting for Clinton, who I find to be a less than desirable candidate because she is not as liberal as I'd like in just about every aspect you can imagine, but especially so in terms of foreign affairs. So, for me, I am going to voting for the lesser of two evils. Please don't suggest that I'm doing otherwise because, by simple deduction, you are suggesting that either my values are invalid or worse, that I am being lumped in, in your mind, with the deplorables that Clinton speaks of when she talks of a certain subset of those in favor of Trump... and I'm pretty sure, for all the hate you may have for me, you don't actually lump me in there.
Second option, voting for a third party candidate for President. Are you kidding me with this? Ok, those of you who are voting in a state that is excessively in one major party's favor or the other, you're fine to vote for a third-party candidate... but don't think for a moment that they'll get elected. For those of you who are voting in a state that may, just maybe, pick either side... GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR... <clears throat> <takes breath> you're insane if you have a preference between Clinton and Trump and are voting third party. That's all there is to it. If your state could go either way and you're voting third party, that doesn't mean you want a third party candidate to be elected, that means you don't want the candidate that you favor between Trump and Clinton to be President... which is how I get to the "you're insane" bit. Let me rephrase that a bit. If you're voting for a third party candidate and you live in a state that is up for grabs (whether it's typically a swing state or not), you're actively opposing the candidate you prefer. Here's why. Third party candidates are great if you have representative elections like Europe does, or if the third party has a chance as it does in local, or even sometimes in state elections, but there is no chance, none, that a third party candidate will be elected President this year. It is, simply put, not going to happen. So, by voting for a third party candidate, you're not voting for the choice of two evils I mentioned above, and in so doing, not tipping the scales in that lesser evil's favor.
In Massachusetts, we have the luxury of being strongly in favor of Clinton and therefore can vote for a third party candidate to show support for a third party (not for the individuals running, because again, they're not going to win). And there is some logic to doing so. By voting for a third party candidate, you're influencing which parties are seen as viable for the local and state elections as well as who gets invited to the national stage (read Presidential debates), and that's important. So, yes, in a solid state, vote for a third party candidate to help the third party that you're in favor of get some further traction, by all means... but that's limited to the solid states.
1) One of the two main parties' candidates is seen as good
2) Voting for a third party candidate
Answer... BOTH. This post is two posts in one!
Alright, so, starting with the obvious. I'm really quite happy that there are those out there, and I know quite a few, who are exceedingly pleased with Clinton for President. I'm not. This does not mean I'm sexist, stupid, unreasonable, die-hard-for-Bernie, single-minded, or in any other way wrong-headed. I have real and rational reasons for not being in favor of Clinton just as those friends of mine that are in favor of her surely have reasons they were not in favor of Sanders. There are political views and stands that are not based in sexism. I will be voting for Clinton, who I find to be a less than desirable candidate because she is not as liberal as I'd like in just about every aspect you can imagine, but especially so in terms of foreign affairs. So, for me, I am going to voting for the lesser of two evils. Please don't suggest that I'm doing otherwise because, by simple deduction, you are suggesting that either my values are invalid or worse, that I am being lumped in, in your mind, with the deplorables that Clinton speaks of when she talks of a certain subset of those in favor of Trump... and I'm pretty sure, for all the hate you may have for me, you don't actually lump me in there.
Second option, voting for a third party candidate for President. Are you kidding me with this? Ok, those of you who are voting in a state that is excessively in one major party's favor or the other, you're fine to vote for a third-party candidate... but don't think for a moment that they'll get elected. For those of you who are voting in a state that may, just maybe, pick either side... GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR... <clears throat> <takes breath> you're insane if you have a preference between Clinton and Trump and are voting third party. That's all there is to it. If your state could go either way and you're voting third party, that doesn't mean you want a third party candidate to be elected, that means you don't want the candidate that you favor between Trump and Clinton to be President... which is how I get to the "you're insane" bit. Let me rephrase that a bit. If you're voting for a third party candidate and you live in a state that is up for grabs (whether it's typically a swing state or not), you're actively opposing the candidate you prefer. Here's why. Third party candidates are great if you have representative elections like Europe does, or if the third party has a chance as it does in local, or even sometimes in state elections, but there is no chance, none, that a third party candidate will be elected President this year. It is, simply put, not going to happen. So, by voting for a third party candidate, you're not voting for the choice of two evils I mentioned above, and in so doing, not tipping the scales in that lesser evil's favor.
In Massachusetts, we have the luxury of being strongly in favor of Clinton and therefore can vote for a third party candidate to show support for a third party (not for the individuals running, because again, they're not going to win). And there is some logic to doing so. By voting for a third party candidate, you're influencing which parties are seen as viable for the local and state elections as well as who gets invited to the national stage (read Presidential debates), and that's important. So, yes, in a solid state, vote for a third party candidate to help the third party that you're in favor of get some further traction, by all means... but that's limited to the solid states.
When Does A Man's Perspective Matter (by way of Clinton's Health Scandle)
This post is brought to you by the "Clinton Health Scandle of Really?!?!?"
I've been slowly coming to understand over the last year that I, as a man, can not have my own opinions on whether something has a particular aspect toward women, either degrading or otherwise.
O.k., let's back up and set the stage a bit.
For the last few months, Trump has been suggesting that Clinton's health isn't where you would want a president's health to be, in particular suggesting her stamina is lacking. This has been suggested by many to be a sexist comment, which I accept as being the case since I, as a man, can't pass judgement on what is/isn't being sexist toward a woman. Last Friday, Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia and told to take some medication and get some rest. The latter not being an option because she's campaigning to be president, she proceeded to go to a 9/11 remembrance event. She got dehydrated, as one does when sick and working, and had to leave early. She was seen being assisted to her car. I would describe her movement as near-collapsing, again, to be expected if you're sick and being active. There's no shame there. The problem comes when you piece the bits together. Two more bits that should be included in the mix: Clinton's campaign didn't say to anyone that she was sick (normal) and one of the big concerns people have about Clinton is how private (read secretive) she is.
Alright, so, let's pull this apart a little before going into the reactions. Clinton didn't want to announce that she was sick because this would potentially be seen as weakness and play into what Trump has been saying for months. On the other side, Clinton then was seen as hiding a pneumonia diagnosis, at best, or hiding that she's really not well at all, at worst, the latter being the theory being floated by Trump supporters (and some fanatically anti-Clinton likely-to-believe-conspiracy folk). It's a tough call. It's a sticky catch 22 and one that's not easily avoided.
On the other side, people have started saying "Clinton got sick and kept working, exactly what women do all the time" without explaining anything about the second statement. I, being a childless man, didn't understand that what they meant was that women with children work while sick all the time in order to keep their sick time available for when their children (or husband) are sick and they need to be home taking care of them. I, being a man that has often gone to work while sick if it was anything short of debilitating, found this to be a bit insulting as it suggests that women are the only ones that commonly work while sick. I've seen colleagues come in to work while they have pneumonia plenty of times in the earlier part of my career. It's only very recent in my 13 years at my current company that the majority of my colleagues feel o.k. with taking time off when they're sick (mind you, having a cold doesn't count as being sick). Furthermore, I considered whether the statement was about positions that have been historically linked to women, but this didn't seem to align either, since there are various careers, such as restaurant kitchen staff, where taking time off when sick isn't something that's allowed.
Mind you, I understand now what was being commented on: not that women without children work while sick more than men without children, but instead that women who have a family tend to be expected to take care of family members when family members are sick and therefore save their sick time for those occurrences rather than taking the time to take care of themselves. Further, women with families are expected to take care of those families even when sick instead of the father taking care of the family needs when the mother is sick. This, of course, assumes a household with a woman and man, but I digress.
I also understand how this expectation not being something I understood to be the meaning of the posts makes me sexist because I didn't come up with it immediately so I'm not aware of the problems women face. So, before we move on, keep in mind that I already know that I'm a sexist man and am accepting that.
So... here's my question... I, as a man, can't determine when women should be offended by something. I get that. Can I, as a man, determine when I'm offended by something I see as offensive to men? If the line was "Clinton is hard working, exactly as all women are," would it be acceptable for me to find that offensive toward me as it suggests that I'm not hard working because I'm a man? The reason I ask is that it's not necessarily obvious that I am permitted this judgement. The judgement is based on the question of who determines whether women are harder working than men are in general. Is it me, based on my experience and knowledge, or is it the person making the claim, based on whatever criteria they wish to use? The statement "Clinton got sick and kept working, exactly what women do all the time" does not provide the understanding about why the latter statement is true and, if, like me, you didn't understand that it's really talking about "mothers" rather than "women", you're going to make the obvious interpretation of "this person thinks that women work while sick more than men do, generically." Thus, you might consider this comment to be offensive to men if that has not been your experience. So, who determines the basis for understanding the statement?
Let's take another example, "boys and girls" when referring to adults. Again, I understand I shouldn't provide feedback on whether calling a woman a "girl" is diminutive, but can I voice my opinion that calling a man a "boy" is diminutive? Where along the spectrum does my opinion cease to matter, my voice cease to be helpful, and my attempting to add to the dialogue start being considered not only not valid but outright harmful to the dialogue?
I'm not asking this in contempt, I'm asking it in contemplation and the hope that others will give thought to it as well as thought to how they react to the opinions of others and the writing statements that others may not understand without at least some level of explanation.
And at the risk of overstepping my bounds as a white, heterosexual, male from the middle-class, I would point out that blanket statements are easy and fun but they often detract from the hoped-for outcome. I say this with full knowledge and awareness that I have made them plenty of times in the past. I have been informed politely in several of those cases that my statements painted with too broad a brush and I have since often found myself trying to articulate my points better, such as by saying "Republican leadership" or "Congressional Republicans" rather than "Republicans". I feel, even as I write this, that I am overstepping my bounds because I should not suggest to other groups how they should argue their point or how they should advocate for their position... but I'm typing it anyway, regardless of how evil and privileged it indicates that I am to do so. I have, in previous posts indicated that I am indeed evil by way of the values, behavior requirements, and even more generally my born-to attributes, others have indicated they believe to be evil, so why not play into it a bit.
I've been slowly coming to understand over the last year that I, as a man, can not have my own opinions on whether something has a particular aspect toward women, either degrading or otherwise.
O.k., let's back up and set the stage a bit.
For the last few months, Trump has been suggesting that Clinton's health isn't where you would want a president's health to be, in particular suggesting her stamina is lacking. This has been suggested by many to be a sexist comment, which I accept as being the case since I, as a man, can't pass judgement on what is/isn't being sexist toward a woman. Last Friday, Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia and told to take some medication and get some rest. The latter not being an option because she's campaigning to be president, she proceeded to go to a 9/11 remembrance event. She got dehydrated, as one does when sick and working, and had to leave early. She was seen being assisted to her car. I would describe her movement as near-collapsing, again, to be expected if you're sick and being active. There's no shame there. The problem comes when you piece the bits together. Two more bits that should be included in the mix: Clinton's campaign didn't say to anyone that she was sick (normal) and one of the big concerns people have about Clinton is how private (read secretive) she is.
Alright, so, let's pull this apart a little before going into the reactions. Clinton didn't want to announce that she was sick because this would potentially be seen as weakness and play into what Trump has been saying for months. On the other side, Clinton then was seen as hiding a pneumonia diagnosis, at best, or hiding that she's really not well at all, at worst, the latter being the theory being floated by Trump supporters (and some fanatically anti-Clinton likely-to-believe-conspiracy folk). It's a tough call. It's a sticky catch 22 and one that's not easily avoided.
On the other side, people have started saying "Clinton got sick and kept working, exactly what women do all the time" without explaining anything about the second statement. I, being a childless man, didn't understand that what they meant was that women with children work while sick all the time in order to keep their sick time available for when their children (or husband) are sick and they need to be home taking care of them. I, being a man that has often gone to work while sick if it was anything short of debilitating, found this to be a bit insulting as it suggests that women are the only ones that commonly work while sick. I've seen colleagues come in to work while they have pneumonia plenty of times in the earlier part of my career. It's only very recent in my 13 years at my current company that the majority of my colleagues feel o.k. with taking time off when they're sick (mind you, having a cold doesn't count as being sick). Furthermore, I considered whether the statement was about positions that have been historically linked to women, but this didn't seem to align either, since there are various careers, such as restaurant kitchen staff, where taking time off when sick isn't something that's allowed.
Mind you, I understand now what was being commented on: not that women without children work while sick more than men without children, but instead that women who have a family tend to be expected to take care of family members when family members are sick and therefore save their sick time for those occurrences rather than taking the time to take care of themselves. Further, women with families are expected to take care of those families even when sick instead of the father taking care of the family needs when the mother is sick. This, of course, assumes a household with a woman and man, but I digress.
I also understand how this expectation not being something I understood to be the meaning of the posts makes me sexist because I didn't come up with it immediately so I'm not aware of the problems women face. So, before we move on, keep in mind that I already know that I'm a sexist man and am accepting that.
So... here's my question... I, as a man, can't determine when women should be offended by something. I get that. Can I, as a man, determine when I'm offended by something I see as offensive to men? If the line was "Clinton is hard working, exactly as all women are," would it be acceptable for me to find that offensive toward me as it suggests that I'm not hard working because I'm a man? The reason I ask is that it's not necessarily obvious that I am permitted this judgement. The judgement is based on the question of who determines whether women are harder working than men are in general. Is it me, based on my experience and knowledge, or is it the person making the claim, based on whatever criteria they wish to use? The statement "Clinton got sick and kept working, exactly what women do all the time" does not provide the understanding about why the latter statement is true and, if, like me, you didn't understand that it's really talking about "mothers" rather than "women", you're going to make the obvious interpretation of "this person thinks that women work while sick more than men do, generically." Thus, you might consider this comment to be offensive to men if that has not been your experience. So, who determines the basis for understanding the statement?
Let's take another example, "boys and girls" when referring to adults. Again, I understand I shouldn't provide feedback on whether calling a woman a "girl" is diminutive, but can I voice my opinion that calling a man a "boy" is diminutive? Where along the spectrum does my opinion cease to matter, my voice cease to be helpful, and my attempting to add to the dialogue start being considered not only not valid but outright harmful to the dialogue?
I'm not asking this in contempt, I'm asking it in contemplation and the hope that others will give thought to it as well as thought to how they react to the opinions of others and the writing statements that others may not understand without at least some level of explanation.
And at the risk of overstepping my bounds as a white, heterosexual, male from the middle-class, I would point out that blanket statements are easy and fun but they often detract from the hoped-for outcome. I say this with full knowledge and awareness that I have made them plenty of times in the past. I have been informed politely in several of those cases that my statements painted with too broad a brush and I have since often found myself trying to articulate my points better, such as by saying "Republican leadership" or "Congressional Republicans" rather than "Republicans". I feel, even as I write this, that I am overstepping my bounds because I should not suggest to other groups how they should argue their point or how they should advocate for their position... but I'm typing it anyway, regardless of how evil and privileged it indicates that I am to do so. I have, in previous posts indicated that I am indeed evil by way of the values, behavior requirements, and even more generally my born-to attributes, others have indicated they believe to be evil, so why not play into it a bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)