Making accusations of misogyny towards folks who have a different view than you about Party Leaders

[liskddksil]

is as intellectual dishonest as those who shout ant-semitism towards people with policy differences on Israel. I expect that kind of stuff from the other side, but let's hold ourselves to a higher standard and have a civil debate without descending into name-calling and slandering of our own. Thanks!

[boston bean]

1. I find not acknowledging misogyny and anti semitism to be worse than intellectual dishonesty.

I find it downright dangerous.

People need to stop doing that!

Thanks!

[hlthe2b]

5. Exactly. This

A pattern of misogynistic attitude/comments by some should not be ignored any more than the pattern of racist comments/attitudes--no matter how much the commentator denies harboring such biases (because they ALWAYS will).


Oh, yes, THANKS!

[liskddksil]

10. Understood but when people make those accusations and they are unfounded it makes legitimate claims

harder to prosecute. Remember the boy who cried wolf theory...

[MineralMan]

11. You have claimed they are unfounded accusations, but

you have provided no evidence of that. If you can defend someone, present your case. If you can't present a good case that such accusations are unfounded, though, perhaps you are not correct. I don't know. I have not seen your argument for your position yet.

[liskddksil]

21. see my other reply. nt

[MineralMan]

23. Which 'other reply?'

There are many replies. Each has a number.

[Major Nikon]

40. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

- Christopher Hitchens

[MineralMan]

41. Unsupported claims of all kinds should not be accepted

without comment.

- MineralMan

[Major Nikon]

60. Which is pretty much the whole point of the OP

Claiming that because some attacks against women are misogyny so we must assume all of them are is just as legitimate as the mirror argument of that.

[whathehell]

77. Who decides whether they are unfounded or not?

You have remember that a lot of sexism is unconscious.

[EffieBlack]

12. TOTALLY This!

I'm sick of progressives claiming that misogyny, anti-semitism and racism exist, but they never happen to be in play "this time."

[mcar]

56. Kind of like how the Rs say

we can't discuss gun laws after a mass shooting cause it's the wrong time.

[DefenseLawyer]

33. So is it your contention that every criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu is rooted in anti-Semitism?

I find that to be absurd.

[NCTraveler]

85. That's your take-away?

Impressive.

[DefenseLawyer]

90. I just asked a question

The OP used as an example that someone calling every criticism of Israel anti-Semitism was intellectually dishonest. From your response I could not ascertain whether you took issue with that or not, but it seemed from your dismissive tone that perhaps you did. Thus the question. Am I to assume that the answer is no?

[mcar]

53. I agree completely

[pirateshipdude]

61. Yes. Or be called on it, for sure. Eom.

[brer cat]

62. Thank you, boston.

Well said.

[NCTraveler]

88. This. nt.

[Madam45for2923]

2. If the glove fits...

[liskddksil]

7. Elaborate? nt

[Madam45for2923]

13. Variation: If the shoe fits, wear it

Meaning

If a description applies to you, then accept it.

This expression is often used when something derogatory is said about a person who then complains to a third party. The third party, if they agree with the original negative comment, might suggest "If the shoe fits, then wear it". An example of that might be:

Jack: Just because I've missed two or three sessions, my fitness trainer says I lack motivation.
Jill: Well, if the shoe fits, wear it

Origin

'If the shoe fits, wear it' is often shortened to 'If the shoe fits...', leaving the listener to fill in the blank. The expression is the American version of the earlier British phrase 'If the cap fits, wear it', which is also still in general use. Daniel Defoe used the earlier phrase in the satirical poem The Dyet of Poland. Defoe had the work printed in London in 1705 but, as it was a rather vehement critique of the English parliament, Defoe used the flimsy pretence that it had been printed in Dantzig and was the work of 'Angliopoloski of Lithuania'. Defoe's point in the poem was that readers are responsible for their own opinions; he (or rather Angliopoloski) may have written the poem but that any conclusions drawn from it were owned by the reader, not him:

Gentlemen, and if the Cap fits any Body let 'em wear it.
'If the cap fits' is itself a version of a yet earlier phrase 'if the cloak sitteth fit', that is, 'if the cloak fits well'. This expression dates from the 16th century and was used in print by Richard Hooker in Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie, 1593:

Which cloake sitteth no lesse fit on the backe of their cause, then of the Anabaptists.

The 'cloak' version of the phrase does suggest that the later 'cap' was a variant of 'cape'.

As to 'if the shoe fits', that began being used in the late 18th century. The earliest example that I have found in print is from the US newspaper the New York Gazette & Weekly Mercury, May 1773:

Why should Mr. Vanderbeck apply a general comparison to himself? Let those whom the shoe fits wear it.

The change from cap to shoe may well have been influenced by the Cinderella story, which has a snug-fitting slipper as the primary plot device. Versions of the tale that include the 'lost slipper' scenario were well known in the USA and Europe by 1773. In 1634, Giambattista Basile, published Il Pentamerone, a popular collection of Italian folk tales. One of the stories, Cenerentola, is the basis of the Cinderella story as we now know it, complete with wicked stepmother, ugly sisters and a missing slipper.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/if-the-shoe-fits.html

[MineralMan]

14. Before you ask someone to elaborate, you should be willing

to elaborate, yourself. You've made a broad-brush statement regarding people being accused of misogyny. But you have not presented any information. Just the statement. Before asking people to back up their statement, you should probably back up yours.

[liskddksil]

17. I'm defending many posters here and elected officials who are getting slandered with the word

"misogynist" for having different views about a question of party tactics. It's pretty shameful behavior and needs to end.

[MineralMan]

24. Your "defense" is non-specific, since you don't supply names

of either those being "slandered" nor of those doing the supposed slandering.

Probably, discussing these issues within the existing threads would be a better path. This thread is far too broad and non-specific to be of much use, really.

I've not seen people called misogynists for simply having "different views" about party tactics. The burden of proof is yours, you see. That's why discussing such things in the threads where they occur is more useful than posting a broad, non-specific new thread.

[Jim Lane]

69. I question whether the poster could meet your request within DU rules

The basic situation is:
* Poster A criticizes a woman
* Poster B denounces the criticism as misogyny
* Poster C points out that not every criticism of a woman is misogynistic

You want the originator of this thread to give you a link to Poster B's post, or presumably to several such posts. In the abstract, that's a reasonable request. Here, however, it might be a call-out.

BTW, if Poster C has the burden of showing that some critics have in fact been unjustifiably charged with misogyny, then Poster B has the burden of showing that a particular criticism is so motivated. If Poster A has a pattern of treating men and women differently, then the case can be made, but a one-off criticism is essentially worthless as evidence.

I will tell you -- without providing links because I'm a coward -- that I have the same impression as the OP. I have seen "Poster B" type posts on DU in which someone is accused of misogyny and the ONLY basis is that a woman has been criticized (or, sometimes, a false assertion that no man similarly situated has ever been criticized).

Even without links, reasonable people should be able to agree that misogyny exists, and false accusations of misogyny also exist.

[Madam45for2923]

26. Two years ago I did not think of it, but after last year's election, LOL!

People don't want to be called out for being misogynist or racist then better they rethink their words and actions that are misogynist and racist.

People need to stop demonizing and scapegoating women and POC.

And stop minimizing issues to do with women & POC.

[Chevy]

80. It's the big new thing on Twitter

don't ya know? Harass POC and women and claim to wrap themselves in a progressive blanket while having a little pretty pink rose bud in their profile.

[Madam45for2923]

82. and they want us to pussyfoot around their misogyny and racists bullying. They can bully but we

must not call them out. We must tend to their fees.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. +1

[MineralMan]

3. But, you see, misogyny exists within the Democratic Party

There's no question about it. It's not as prevalent among Democrats as among Republicans, but it is a real issue.

Simply saying that it should not be brought up in discussions is simplistic. Since it does exist, it is a relevant subject that has its place in DU discussion threads. If you see accusations of misogyny that you can refute with factual information, then you should do that, by all means. But, it's incorrect to simply say that misogyny is not involved in situations like calls for Pelosi's ouster. There are, indeed misogynists among those who are making those calls.

[liskddksil]

6. I'm mainly referring to multiple posts yesterday blatantly calling Rep. Kathleen Rice a misogynist

which is outrageous and I was shocked that more people weren't condemning.

[MineralMan]

9. I know very little about Kathleen Rice, frankly.

Does she hold misogynistic views? I do not know. Some women do, ironically. Some people don't even know that they hold such views. Rep. Rice is new to the House of Representatives. She may not realize why Nancy Pelosi keeps getting elected to top leadership positions by her Democratic peers. I have no idea of what she knows and does not know.

As I said, if you have evidence about Rep. Rice that is relevant to a discussion, you can bring that evidence to the discussion.

Personally, I am very slow to accuse anyone of anything negative, but that's just me. If I see accusations of misogyny, I look more closely to see if they are justified. If you present me with evidence that Rep. Rice is not, then I will look at it, of course.

However, calling for a moratorium on bringing up misogyny is not conducive to discussion at all.

[MineralMan]

15. Which posts? Which threads? Show us what you're talking about

so we can go look for ourselves at those "multiple posts" that are "blatantly" calling Rep. Rice a misogynist. It's impossible on DU to do a search detailed enough to find such posts. Links, please.

[liskddksil]

18. Here's the chief culprit but it's representative of a lot of the talk I've been seing

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9235940

[MineralMan]

22. OK. I saw that thread. It appears that there is only one

person using that word to describe Rep. Rice. I don't believe I commented on that accusation at all in that thread. You mentioned multiple posts. Show me more.

[SharonClark]

16. There appears to be one poster who calls Rice a misogynist.

I would like to hear some evidence about that as well.

[liskddksil]

19. This is the most blatant, but it's representive of a lot of the discussion I'm seeing and it's

shameful in my view.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9235940

[MineralMan]

25. How is it representative? How are we to judge

if we have only one thread to look at? That's the same thread you linked to in your reply to me, above.

[melman]

68. You know full well it's in a lot more than one thread

But for whatever reason you insist on playing this game. I suppose you think it's clever. It's not.

[leftofcool]

4. I have extremely high standards

Which is why I don't side with Trump and Republicans on having Nancy Pelosi step aside.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. +1

[NurseJackie]

44. Damn!

[leftstreet]

8. If you can honestly criticize without bigotry, then do it

An 'intellectually honest' critique is fine

Not acknowledging existing prejudices towards women and persons of color will start your critique on a difficult path

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. +1

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. aww

[liskddksil]

30. ??

[NurseJackie]

45. +1

[DefenseLawyer]

31. The capacity for abstract thought is not a requirement for posting on DU

I'm afraid your expectations are too high.

[Madam45for2923]

37. Misogyny and racism are exercises in abstract thought?

Am doing "abstract thought" here, don't criticize me while I do! LOL!

DefenseLawyer
31. The capacity for abstract thought is not a requirement for posting on DU
I'm afraid your expectations are too high.

[DefenseLawyer]

39. If this was intended to refute my comment

It didn't.

[Madam45for2923]

42. You are saying that people cannot call out others for misogyny and racism as doing so shows lack of

abstract thought.

With abstract thought we can tolerate racism and sexism because we view whatever others say and do as just an exercise of abstract thought. Very abstract thought-y the whole exercise. And no one gets called out.

[DefenseLawyer]

43. No, that's not what I said or even what I implied.

I would suggest that if the immediate and persistent response to any criticism of a woman (where one doesn't agree with the particular criticism) is to dismiss that criticism as being based on a pathological hatred of women, it shows an inability to engage in abstract thought.

[Madam45for2923]

55. Hate is not always necessary part of definition. Wanting to control is the key part.

[ananda]

32. I agree.

I've been thinking about this.

It just so happens that the Democratic party has leaders who
happen to be women, Hispanic, Black, etc.

We are inclusive and diverse.

It's the Reeps who play towards white supremacy and misogyny,
not Dems.

Therefore .. I think it's ok to be critical of our leaders no matter
who they are.

We need some answers and some redress regarding electioneering
that goes to the roots of what the Democratic party stand for.

[kcr]

34. I don't think that reasoning holds up.

We can't possibly be sexist because we're not sexist. That's the other guys!

That's circular reasoning. Your error is very common though.

[LanternWaste]

35. Holding ourselves to a higher standard includes supporting our premise with objective evidence

Lacking any valid evidence supporting a premise, and instead replacing them with bumper-stickers that have no objective or substantive meaning, such as "new blood," "neolib," or "corporate shill," we leave ourselves open to the most obvious of interpretations.


"ut let's hold ourselves to a higher standard..."
Holding ourselves to a higher standard includes supporting our premise with objective evidence rather than simplistic bumper-stickers and fortune cookies.

[Iggo]

36. You were here for the primaries, right?

Might as well shout at the tide.

[liskddksil]

38. Yeah, I mostly stayed out of it as I was pretty neutral though I blame the DNC

for truly bumbling the process and raising the tensions on both sides.

[joshcryer]

49. The DNC emails were hacked by the Russians.

Disseminated by cohorts of the Russians.

And all they could find were a handful of third rate comments from low tier staffers who were socked down from the get go. There was no there there, but they were able to effectively message and create something from nothing, because our media is a disgrace and clicks mean more than honesty and truth.

[liskddksil]

50. More so about the primary-debate scheduling which gave the GOP months to attack both our candidates

and set impressions in stone without a national platform to respond.

[joshcryer]

51. Any impropriety in the emails regarding Clinton...

...were after she shored up the nomination. There was literally nothing in those emails worth fretting about.

The debate schedule was agreed upon before the primary even took off.

[redgreenandblue]

65. Can't have it both ways really.

If there was nothing in those emails worth fretting about it is hard to see how they could have affected the election.

[bettyellen]

78. It was orchestrated to add to the server "scandal" which was also nonsense but the media repeated RW

Crap about them over and over again. People thought it was all one big scandal- or that she got hacked- it didn't matter because it was "email trouble" over and over again. And yes, some progressives piled on knowing it was bulshit. Primary schedule my ass.

[joshcryer]

81. The content of the emails didn't, it was how they were reported.

Not hard to get.

[Jim Lane]

70. I'd like to know more about "the debate schedule was agreed upon"

I ask because I remember being somewhat uncertain even at the time.

My vague recollection is that the full DNC has a smaller inner body that can make decisions in between meetings of the full DNC. (Because the DNC has more than 400 members, full meetings are cumbersome.)

My further recollection is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as DNC Chair, proclaimed the debate schedule and also proclaimed the new exclusivity rule, which had not been a feature in any prior cycle. Finally, I thought I saw an allegation that she falsely attributed the schedule and the new rule to a vote of the DNC's inner body, whereas in fact it was her unilateral decision.

If all that is true then to say the schedule was "agreed upon" is, at best, misleading.

This is tangentially related to the OP. Wasserman Schultz has been criticized because she, as a former Clinton campaign chair, used her position as DNC Chair to make a significant change in the rules that was widely seen as benefiting Clinton. It's not misogynistic to say that she acted wrongfully.

[bettyellen]

79. The criticisms came many many months later, when some hoped they could get late changes.

Like the super delegate issues, it appeared to be sour grapes about not being able to make wholesale changes st the last minute. Imagine if Hillary tried to eliminate caucuses at the last minute? Same thing.

[joshcryer]

87. Yeah, they scheduled 6, and did 9. People complained then.

And still complain now over insane stuff.

The DNC went out of its way to not show impropriety toward Clinton, even after she shored up the nomination (indeed, that was part of the controversy, someone who could do math wrote an email talking about how they could go easy on Sanders supporters was one of the emails).

[Jim Lane]

91. Now, that statement is flat-out false.

As I said, I don't remember all the details, but I did remember that criticism was contemporaneous. It took me about a minute to find "Democrats 'didn't act in good faith' over 2016 presidential primary debate limit" and "Democratic primary debate schedule criticized as Clinton 'coronation'", both well before the first debate was held.

[joshcryer]

93. They created that narrative though.

The Democratic debates were not the total shitfest that the Republicans had (indeed, the Republicans wound up nominating a nutter because of their excessive debates, Trump was behind for months until he was able to get a free stage of incessant propaganda).

The scheduled 6, did 9 (with forums). More than enough.

[Jim Lane]

94. Fine, YOUR opinion is that it was "more than enough"

I was looking for information about DWS's role. So far I've gotten no information about that; I've gotten a blatantly false statement about the timing of the criticism; and I've gotten your charge that critics "created that narrative" (what exactly does that mean?)

There was a body of opinion holding that cutting debates from a couple dozen to six was a bad idea AND that it was a change that favored Clinton. If you disagree, that's your right, but you can't dismiss the criticism as "creating a narrative". By that light, a right-winger could charge progressives with creating a narrative that the GOP's health care bill is a bad idea.

Speaking of the GOP, Abraham Lincoln famously asked, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have?" The answer, he said, is four: "Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

There were six debates. Calling a forum a debate doesn't make it a debate.

[joshcryer]

83. Yeah, but, I mean, O'Malley and Webb hadn't even run yet.

Clinton announced fairly early, Sanders announced 5 days before the schedule: http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/politics/2016-democratic-debates-hillary-clinton/

That's damn early to make some bullshit statement that the DNC was purposefully handing it to Clinton. Though the media narrative was what was created at the time. Because, in reality, nothing ever comes easy to Hillary Clinton. Literally nothing.

[bettyellen]

92. She has had an uphill battle the whole way and yet people kept talking about coronation and my

Favorite- too ambitious!?! You THINK the guys running aren't? WTF?

[NurseJackie]

46. LOL

[liskddksil]

48. How is my post funny?

[NurseJackie]

67. How is it not?

[liskddksil]

72. Real mature post.

[NurseJackie]

74. Real funny post.

[liskddksil]

75. I don't see how this is supposed to change my mind?

[NurseJackie]

76. I don't see why you'd even think such a thing in the first place.

[joshcryer]

47. Blanket statements help no one.

But interparty fighting and divisiveness benefits only one group. The enemy.

Every one doing this is to blame.

[Still In Wisconsin]

52. I agree.

I'm not one of the "Pelosi must go" crowd, but your point is a good one.

[liskddksil]

54. Thank you nt

[janterry]

57. I agree

[obamanut2012]

58. lulz

[unblock]

59. firing black people doesn't make you a bigot

but everyone knows you better have a damn good case when you do so.

i've seen many posts that simply say "it's time for her to go".
and invariably suggest men to replace her.

or simply say she's not good enough, without presenting any evidence whatsoever.


if you fire a black person with that kind of explanation, you should expect accusations of racism.

if you have a legitimate point of view, based on substantive research, then present all that substance and people can have an informed debate. but there's been very, very little of that from the anti-pelosi side.

it's the absence of substantive critique that raises the question of whether or not sexism is behind this... or republican sh*t-stirring.

[athena]

63. Firing a highly competent black person *does* make one a bigot.

Some of us posted article after article arguing that Nancy Pelosi is considered the most effective leader in Congress. There was not a single response from those claiming that Nancy Pelosi is weak, ineffective, etc. (See my journal if you're interested in the articles.)

When a white employer fires a highly competent black employee, the white employer IS a bigot. Anyone who wants one of the most competent minority leaders in the history of the House replaced by a white man IS sexist, whether they admit it to themselves or not. (All the suggested replacements have been white men.)

[unblock]

64. exactly. you need proper cause, and the anti-pelosi people don't have it.

from what i've seen, they haven't even tried to make a legitimate case.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

71. YES

[redgreenandblue]

66. Yup. It is a rather big problem and probably cost us the election.

What many in the country heard was "Vote for us you racists and sexists". Turns out this doesn't exactly resonate.

[liskddksil]

73. After reading some of the replies here I'm beginning to connect the dots nt

[BainsBane]

84. And who said that?

Where?

[NCTraveler]

86. Holding myself to a higher standard is why I recognize these things....

And do not dismiss them.

[BainsBane]

89. Yeah, it's just a total coincidence that the public figures skewered are women

One after another. And so what if the arguments directed toward Pelosi--that she is used by the GOP in ads to target Democrats--apply just as much to Bernie, who is featured even more prominently in those ads?

Maybe it's not sexism. Maybe it's simply craven opportunism, an effort to execute a power grab they were unable to execute by winning elections anywhere, even in the most liberal areas of the country? Or maybe it's a combination of many factors?

What I do know is this so-called "leftist" attack on the party focuses a great deal on undermining the issues and votes of women and people of color--whether it's deprioritizing abortion rights, decrying "identity politics," talking about how "culture wars" are too "divisive, limiting access to the ballot by replacing primaries with caucuses, or focusing attacks almost exclusively on leaders who are women and people of color.

I have little doubt that those engaged in those efforts don't see anything they are doing as ist in anyway, but they also don't show any concern for how they impact the lives of non-white men. When the effect is to undermine the rights and representation of everyone but white men, a lot of people are going to see it as as discriminatory. Ultimately the intent isn't nearly important as the effect.

[TheFrenchRazor]

95. well, not all accusations are false; i think when there is a pattern, people are justified in callin

calling it out.