HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » EffieBlack » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Feb 3, 2007, 12:43 AM
Number of posts: 14,249

Journal Archives

Excellent take on the Roseanne reboot

This perfectly expresses my feelings about the show.

The ‘Roseanne’ Reboot Is Funny. I’m Not Going to Keep Watching.

By Roxanne Gay
New York Times
March 30, 2018


“Roseanne” reboot, I thought again about accountability. I laughed, yes, and enjoyed seeing the Conner family back on my screen. My first reaction was that the show was excellent. But I could not set aside what I know of Roseanne Barr and how toxic and dangerous her current public persona is. I could not overlook how the Conner family came together to support Mark as he was bullied at school for his gender presentation, after voting for a president who actively works against the transgender community. They voted for a president who doesn’t think the black life of their granddaughter matters. They act as if love can protect the most vulnerable members of their family from the repercussions of their political choices. It cannot.

This fictional family, and the show’s very real creator, are further normalizing Trump and his warped, harmful political ideologies. There are times when we can consume problematic pop culture, but this is not one of those times. I saw the first two episodes of the “Roseanne” reboot, but that’s all I am going to watch. It’s a small line to draw, but it’s a start.

Rosanne is an edgy cultural phenomenon while Blackish is too controversial


Do y'all realize how much the Joe Biden "frontrunner" talk smacks of white male entitlement?

Not only is it premature to be labeling a frontrunner this early in the game before anyone has even gotten in the race, but I seem to recall lots of griping about Hillary Clinton expecting a "coronation" even when she was in the race fighting like hell to win the nomination.

Moreover, many of the reasons given for Biden's supposed superiority over any other possible candidate are the same reasons used to diminish Hillary Clinton - his experience (her experience made her too establishment), longevity (she'd been around too long), political acumen (her acumen meant she was calculating), toughness (she was harsh), spontaneity (WHY did she SAY that? NOT HELPFUL, Hillary!), etc.

This can't be viewed in a vacuum, but must be considered in historical and social context. White men have historically been a given credit for things that minorities and women are not credited for; in fact those same attributes we laud white men for are usually seen as deficits in women and minorities. And often they get spotted extra points for just being the white guy (couched in other, more innocuous gems like, "he's so competent!" and my favorite "he just a regular guy."

Joe Biden could be a great candidate. But so could Eric Holder and Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris and Deval Patrick. Let's not ignore them, put them at the back of the line or make them play catch up because we've decided to give Joe Biden the white guy head start.

I'm urging my fellow Democrats to take a close look and think about whether privilege is coming into play and helping to shape some of your opinions about this race. Be clear, I'm not calling you a racist or sexist nor do I assume you are. But we all have biases (I know I do) and unless we are willing to look at them, recognize and try to overcome them, we're not going to make any progress.

Buckle up for some serious sh/t - todays march is going to make some people lose their damned minds

The undeniably huge crowd sizes, the clarity of message and diversity of voices is going to freak some people out and their reaction’s going to be ugly.

The worst reactions usually come right before groundbreaking progress. It means change is a’comin’. But get ready for it...

Anyone else find it strange that Anderson asked Karen McDougal if Trump compared her to his kids?

And her saying, “Yeah, I heard a lot” about Ivanka?

It’s an odd and very leading question that suggests he already knew the answer. It’s a particularly interesting query coming AFTER he interviewed Stormy and knew what bombshells, if any, she had dropped.

Just wondering what’s in store.

I just remembered something interesting

Back in 1993, after she posed nude in Playboy, Gennifer Flowers did an interview in which she said Hillary Clinton would never pose for the magazine because her behind was too wide to fit on the centerfold. Arsenio Hall took after her in his monologue and said (paraphrasing a 25-year-old memory), "You're right. Hillary Clinton would never pose in Playboy, but that's because SHE'S the First Lady of the United States and not some skank who goes around posing naked."

What a sweet, naive, innocent time that was.

An observation about women in politics

As many of you know, I have been pushing back hard on the moves to drive Nancy Pelosi out of her leadership position, Diane Feinstein out of office and Hillary Clinton out of sight, hearing and mind. The most common argument for their banishment is that 1) they’re too old; 2) they’re too “establishment;” 3) they’ve been around too long; and 4) we need “new, fresh faces and ideas.”

These excuses are particularly galling to me because they seem to be applied almost exclusively to women, while men of the same age aren’t pressured to get out of the way for these reasons. In fact, their age and experience leads many to lionize the most as seasoned and experienced.

I’ve noted in an earlier OP that women politicians are caught in a Catch-22. Unlike men, they aren’t taken seriously until they develop a deep well of experience. But as soon as they do, they’re treated as has-beens who need to get out of the way to make room for newer, fresher faces.

Women have not had the luxury that men have always had - to appear out of nowhere and rise to the top quickly and/or reach the top with little or no experience. Instead, women have constantly had to prove that they have what it takes to be leaders and the only way they could do that was forcing themselves into the arena, keeping their heads down, working their asses off for years.

But what happens when they finally manage to do it? They get criticized and mocked - by Republicans AND Democrats - as "too establishment," as "tools," as "past their shelf life,"etc. - and then they're told to get out of the way and make room for "new faces" (which, big surprise, are usually whiskered).

Meanwhile, men stroll (and are often carried) into the ring in and stay there for as long as they want without anyone telling them they need to get out of the way. In fact, people like McConnell and Biden and Sanders and Hatch and McCain (I'll stop here, but could list names forever) are fawned over as elder statesmen who have the experience and chops to be effective in their jobs.

As I think about this, I see an additional issue, especially for women “of a certain age.” Unlike the men of their generation, Baby Boomer women didn’t have the option to start plotting a political career right out of college since that just wasn’t a realistic goal for most women, regardless how talented and committed they were. Moreover, while men could launch a political career (or take the types of demanding jobs that help pave the way for such a career) and have a family at the same time, women usually had to choose between a family OR a career. As a result, many women of that era opted to have families and either not work outside of the home or work in jobs that were less time- and attention-demanding and that didn’t interfere with and, often advanced their husband’s ambitions.

So, the talented, fierce, brilliant Nancy Pelosi, the daughter of a popular mayor, and in whose blood politics bubbled, didn’t jump into a political career but, instead married, moved to California and started a family. Over the years, she got involved in local politics as a volunteer and rose up through the ranks, playing a support role - raising money, working behind the scenes within the state party and eventually, the DNC. Once her children were grown, she finally entered elective politics herself, winning her first Congressional race in 1986.

Hillary Clinton and Diane Feinstein have similar stories. Feinstein was elected to San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors in 1970, became Mayor in 1978 on the heels of a tragedy and became a U,S. Senator in 1993. And, as we know, Hillary Clinton took her first elected office in 2001 after she was elected the junior senator from New York.

Compare these women to male politicians whose long experience on the national stage is treated as an attribute, not a detriment. For example, Bernie Sanders has been in Congress for 28 years and an elected official since 1980 - a total of 38 years. Biden was in the U.S. Senate for 37 years, VP for another 8 and a visible public figure and potential presidential candidate for the last year and a half - a total of 46 years on the national stage. But their long tenure leads people to laud these men as sage, elder statesmen with the wisdom and chops to lead the party forward and are being encouraged to run for President touted by more than a few, notwithstanding their previous failed presidential bids.

On the other hand, Diane Feinstein has been in the Senate for 25 years - 21 years less than Biden has been in national politics. Even if you count her years in local elective office, she’s been in politics only two years longer than Biden has been on the national stage. Nancy Pelosi has held office for 32 years, 6 years less than Sanders and more than a decade and a half less than Biden.

And Hillary Clinton held elective office for only 8 years and federal office for a total of 12 years. Even if you count her time as First Lady, the years between stepping down as Secretary of State and her presidential run, and the time since the 2016 election, she’s been on the national stage for only 25 years - compared to Sanders, she’s a pretty fresh face. And next to Biden, she’s a mere ingenue.

Yet while these men are being urged to run for higher office because they have the experience we need in a president, these women are being told to step down or go away because they’re too old or too not new.

Perhaps if they had had the same choices available to them that their male counterparts had, and started their elective political careers earlier, they would have gotten these years of experience under their belts decades earlier at a much younger age and wouldn’t now be seen as old women who need to act their age and know when to move on to make way for younger models.

But they didn’t. They did what they had to do in the times they were living. And now they’re here and they’re smart and they’re strong and they’re effective and they have every right to stay right where they are for as long as they want to remain here. Just like the men.

Trump just announced that McMaster is out, Bolton in

Suppose the Trump voter outreach strategy works and they come back. THEN what?

So, let’s suppose we get a bunch of Trump voters back to the Democratic Party.

What happens then?

They’ left the party for a reason. If they return, they're going to want some payback. What will that be? Pushing for more tax cuts/fewer regulations/more conservative judges? Backburnering civil rights - you know, because identity politics? Getting tougher on “illegals?” Stepping back on LGBT rights? Easing up on the whole pro-choice agenda?

Once they’re back in our party, they’re not going to be quiet and take a backseat while we continue moving our progressive agenda forward. They’re going to get involved and try to influence our policies and directions.

Y’all ok with that?

I’m not.

Maybe they’re better off staying right where they are ...

To those insisting that we "reach out to" and "understand" Trump supporters, let me break it down

You seem to assume that no one has tried to understand or reach out to Trump supporters until now. But we've understood and have been reaching out to them for years. The problem is that they've ignored us.

I've probably interacted with and reached out to more Trump voters and supporters over the years than many have. And, based on my experience, I've come to believe that the great majority of Trump supporters are not worth wasting any further effort on because they know exactly what they're doing, who they're supporting and what he stands for. They've had more than enough chances to see the light and come around and there's little that anyone can tell them now that will make them change their minds at this point.

I can't tell you how many Trump voters I've talked to who have said such things as, "I know he may be racist, but, I'm interested in the Supreme Court" or "I like his stand on taxes" or "I love that's shaking things up," and such other excuses.

I've so totally lost patience with them and these arguments that I now cut them off as soon as they say, "I know he's a racist ..." and tell them that's all I need to know - and if they know that as well, the only thing they can follow that with is "but that's OK with me."

That really pisses them off because they know it's true but they're ashamed to have to admit that to a black woman - because, you know, they're so not racist. And they're not sure how they can get around the fact that acknowledging they are supporting a bigot means they really should stop supporting him but they don't want to stop. And if they continue to support him after being confronted with his racism, how can they continue going around pretending they're open-minded decent people? They can't.

So, instead, they insist that their reasons for supporting him are sufficient to outweigh his racism - as if racism is just any other bug that can be overcome by other features. And they're surely more than grateful for the cover they're given by apologists like some people on DU who fall all over themselves defending them by going on the offensive to attack fellow Democrats for having the NERVE to even SUGGEST that these poor people are bigots or bigot enablers, but are just confused and misunderstood.

Bullshit. Most of them are neither confused nor misunderstood. They know Trump and a critical mass of his supporters are racist. They've seen the evidence every day for years, but they ignore it. They've heard their friends and co-workers and neighbors and favorite athletes and others tell them the pain and fear and danger this man causes us and beg them PLEASE don't help him do this to us, but they turned their backs. They know all this. THEY JUST DON'T CARE.

We can argue about the reasons they claim to abhor racism but don't care about it when it actually occurs. Frankly. I've lost interest in their reasons. All I know is what they DO. And what they've done and continue to do is tolerate and defend a dangerous, vicious racist despite nearly three years of entreaties from minorities that they stand with us, not them.

So don't tell me that I just need to reach out to them and understand them. We've been reaching out to them for years and they slapped our hands away. As is always expected of minorities, I've reached out to them far more than they've ever bothered to reach out to us. I don't need to learn to understand them and certainly don't need to be lectured by some misguided apologists about the need to understand them. I understand them perfectly well. And for that reason, I don't care to waste any more time or effort on them.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »