"...that is offensive to women"

After watching the exchange between James Carville and Michelle Bachman, an obvious trend has already emerged for the upcoming election. Carville is obviously against the selection of Governor Palin as the running mate for the Republican nomination. When he speaks against her credentials and feels that she is under qualified for the position, Bachman's immediate response was that his comments were "offensive to women". How?

To state that the Governor of Alaska, who has less than two years experience in office, is under qualified for the office of Vice President of the United States is deemed offensive to all women?

A double standard has always existed and will continue to exist, but this is even different than the one we've seen for months.

When people say that Obama is inexperienced and under qualified, we do not hear that it is offensive to all men or all black people. It is a legitimate statement that people can make after considering the facts. The opposite can be said when considering the same facts. It is a matter of opinion. I also feel it is a matter of opinion on Governor Palin's qualifications.

But what it is not is offensive to a whole gender.

I feel the ignorance displayed by Michelle Bachman was excruciating. She could not refute what was being said so she simply went to victimize. Carville was attempted to be displayed as a bully, which he played into a little bit with his laughter, but I think he came across as a concerned American who was freely expressing a legitimate opinion.

I'm interested in the opinions of our members on this one. Men and women alike, thoughts on this?

Does anyone agree with Michelle Bachman that these comments are offensive to women? (Keeping in mind that Carville has been a Clinton supporter throughout the Democratic nominations)

Thoughts?

Hi Chissler!

You're going to hear a lot of this type of suggestion throughout this campaign, I'm afraid. What Bachman did was play the "gender card".

Of course stating a person is under-qualified is not offensive to anyone. It's a statement of opinion about a specific person, that in no way reflects upon other people of her gender. If Carville had said, "Women are under-qualified", then she may have a point. But that's not what he said.

I would put it down to the fact that it is yet another attempt for the mainstream media to divide the country in the run-up to the election. Plus, they need "issues" (and I use that term loosely) to fill the 24 hour news cycle.

I think this is part of a larger issue, where the corporate owned mainstream media will continue to try to divide the USA to try to give McCain that edge.

Example:
Carville makes the comment that she lacks experience, and Bachman quickly calls foul and uses the gender card.

So let's assume that McCain picked Palin as his running mate to try to get the Clinton voters who refuse to vote for Obama. So in the minds of the people who picked Palin for those reasons, wouldn't it make sense to cry foul and use the gender card every time her lack of experience is called into play?

I think it's just yet another election tactic used by the mainstream media to divide the potential Obama voters and bring more to McCain's camp.

I know everyone thinks the mainstream media is kissing up to Obama and giving him a biased edge, but I'm thinking outside of the box and wondering if by the time November comes, the young voters and the rest of Obama's supporters will be in "Obama overkill mode" thanks to the mainstream media talking about him non-stop. With the attention span of the current generation, you have to at least wonder...but I guess that's neither here nor there.

And this is coming from an independent standpoint (I don't support either candidate).

Personally, I think this is a non-issue, and I'll tell you why.

There will always be fools, there will always be folks that take the easy way out of a debate (many times it's the race card or the sexual preference card, but the gender card is still floating around it seems, just a bit more out of practice), there will always be folks that believe it.

There is no amount of reason or explanation that can show folks the trees rather than just the forest.

As to the woman card, I think most people of reasonable brain function will see this as the smoke screen that it is. Simple as that.

Truth be told, there is NO experience needed for the presidency in my opinion nor is there any that would really qualify someone. It's a house of cards, especially if you look at the amount of "experience" that has gotten us to this point in our history.

Less time in Washington is certainly a plus for many of us.

I'm in complete agreement that this is a non-issue and somewhat absurd when it gets used. But what surprises me are those that who are playing this card. To see representatives of Congress standing in front of the cameras and crying such absurdities, it really tells me that they are shooting to the lowest common denominator and seeking their vote.

This double standard and the playing of the card doesn't surprise me in the least. But the people who are playing it is what surprises me.

For a Republican to sit in front of the camera and try to convince the country that she is the most qualified candidate and that anyone who feels otherwise is insulting a whole gender... well, that's somebody who I find strikingly odd that they ever won an election.

(Hi BH!)

The comment, to me, was obviously made to deter the intended conviction and make it a little more personal. Classic Spin. Bill O'Reilly would eat it up.

Playing the innocent victim based on remarks that were clearly not implied as gender specific, but rather factual information based on her qualifications, seems like a political ploy to gain more female attention, and hopefully votes. It was, however, a very poor display of political rhetoric by Bachman and is, unfortunately, directly translated to Republican stance.

I certainly hope this does not become a partisan or media bias trend, so to speak. This is "strikingly odd" to say the least, Chissler. Guilty Conscience???

-Dev

I am a woman who considers myself a feminist in many ways, but I would not vote for Sarah Palin, mostly because she's a Republican who shares almost none of my views on anything.

I think it's insulting to women to suppose we will flock to vote for any woman, no matter her qualifications. I am the first to applaud when a woman achieves something outstanding, but the mere possession of a vagina does not entitle one to anything. I believe that the Republican party supposed she would attract disaffected Hillary supporters as well as conservative women. I am a fan of Hillary's (although Obama has my vote) and I cannot see any comparison between the two. I think most Hillary supporters would feel the same. Clinton beats Palin hands down on almost any measure of qualification. If Clinton was the party's candidate I would definitely vote for her.

IMO the Republicans also think that because she's young and attractive she will challenge Obama's "rock star" status, especially with young people, but that betrays the real reasons for Obama's appeal, among which is the fact that he can inspire people.

The Republicans seem to have a "tin ear" for people's real motivations this election cycle.

As a woman also, I completely agree with the above poster. I think to the vast majority of people the fact that Palin is a woman is neither here nor there. I think a huge amount of the coverage I've seen in this election is intended to force things down to the lowest common denominator - to force people to vote because someone is female, or black, or white and male.. If the media can con us into thinking like this, then they can predict the outcome of the election, and thus decide who to support. Nuanced positions are simply absent in all media coverage. You can listen to Obama saying "We do not attack children", and yet every single media outlet will extemporize on whether or not this is an issue, and include their own opinions and attacks upon the subject. When choosing someone to vote for, the media wants to decide which are the issues we care about.

It's not insulting to women to question Palin, it's insulting to treat her in any way differently than any other politician. She should have no free passes, nor extra criticism simply because of her sex.

Perhaps we may consider that if a person, male or female, has the necessary experience for the office of president; we may not want that person in office.

Let's face it, the ones with the experience now are not doing the most fantastic job in the world now are they?

If we elected the most experienced person to the office, I believe, I may be wrong, but I believe we would have President Robert Byrd..

Anyone want that?

Semper

It has nothing to do with experience just gender. Feminist almost always try to be the victims even if they dont have any reason to be the victims.

Those statments are valid observations. It should be a huge red flag that she is not experienced enough to be vice president it should be with obama as well, they are running for very important positions that should not be taken lightly.

Thats why I wont ever understand why ron paul didnt make it, Mccain is crazy, obama doesnt have experience, Hillary made bad choices, Ron paul was the best candidate that was running. He has experience, but most importantly he understands the values of the nation FAR greater than any of the other candidates.

I watched all of the Larry King segment with Carville and Bachmann in real time and saw the fall out from it in real time as well. It was merely a poor insertion of a talking point on Bachmann's part and Carville did a pretty decent job of challenging it and could have gone further but knew better.

This "attack on women" is one of the new rebuttals to questioning her experience by the opposition and expect it to gain traction by the hour. Even if some of us think that it holds no water, the media is running with it full steam.

Now how does this translate to the masses? That remains to be seen. Sometimes you have to let these things run for a while because thats how it works. Nothing in politics has an immediate impact barring a really damaging scandal.

Originally posted by chissler
To see representatives of Congress standing in front of the cameras and crying such absurdities, it really tells me that they are shooting to the lowest common denominator and seeking their vote.

And that is exactly the point. Speak to the lowest common denominator.

Take a look at past transcripts from State of the Unions and other high profile Presidential presentations. They are litered with ideological trite that emphasizes abstract concepts, such as 'freedom' and 'evil-doer'. People respond to these terms easily and without effort.

And why shouldn't they? Every individual is mostly caught up in their day to day life, making money to pay rent and keep a family with the occasional personal time. They don't want to think too hard (this is educated conjecture on my part) about the political structure and who the candidates are, what the issues are. They prefer much to use the herd mentality of responding to relaxed posture or quick furtive action.

And don't think the candidates don't know this. I think they play on intentionally and with out regard for their own intellectual honesty and dignity.

For Michelle Bachman to have made such a blunt statement is not a surprising move, because she is appealing to the people who don't want to think about what the discussion was. She wanted to not be left in the dark and people will do and say stupid things when backed into a corner.

But I agree wholeheartedly when I say that I am disappointed greatly to see this quality of rebutall and behaviour in our supposed leaders.

:shk:

Originally posted by chissler
I'm in complete agreement that this is a non-issue and somewhat absurd when it gets used. But what surprises me are those that who are playing this card. To see representatives of Congress standing in front of the cameras and crying such absurdities, it really tells me that they are shooting to the lowest common denominator and seeking their vote.

This double standard and the playing of the card doesn't surprise me in the least. But the people who are playing it is what surprises me.

How is this any different than the race card that some of Obama's followers have been playing? We've even seen it posted here on ATS! Someone like myself supports McCain, so obviously I'm a racist. At least now you have some perspective into what this feels like.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Perhaps we may consider that if a person, male or female, has the necessary experience for the office of president; we may not want that person in office.

Well Put. Certain Body Parts, have no business being a deciding factor in Politics.

What I can't understand, is why people aren't looking past the trivial stuff. Skin Color, Sex, Race, Religion, etc.... These things, do not MAKE a person, nor should they descriminate against someone being considered for Presidency.

Honestly (with the exception of sometimes in the BTS threads), When I read members posts on here I'm not wondering "What Color is this person, What Sex is this person, What Religion are they, How many children do they have out of wedlock ... etc ... I look at what the person has to say, I look at their argument.

Sex, Color etc.. should NEVER be deciding Factors.

Some thoughts...
- Carrot

Originally posted by sos37
How is this any different than the race card that some of Obama's followers have been playing? We've even seen it posted here on ATS! Someone like myself supports McCain, so obviously I'm a racist. At least now you have some perspective into what this feels like.

At least now I have some perspective? You assume that I have a horse in this race. I do not. I'm merely an bystander who has an opinion on what the American politics are doing to the voting public. They shoot to the lowest common denominator and I don't feel anyone is above it. I feel some are worse than others... but to a certain extent everyone shoots for the bottom.

As I said, my problem doesn't exist with the double standard because it will always exist. Beating on that is only going to tire ourselves.

If it came out that Obama had 25 girlfriends in college, nobody would care. If the same came out about Palin, her morals would be questioned. This is a double standard that we can not deny. I do not support it.. but it exists.

My concern is with the trusted public officials that reinforce these standards to suit their own agenda. Victimizing Palin is an obvious ploy to gain sympathy from an uninformed group of the American voters. What's worse.. it's probably working.

On SNL, McCain had a major problem because they "insulted" Palin. How? Having her appear to be dumb? Palin herself said it was funny. Woops! Clinton was insulted just as much but nobody cared about that. Why? Because she's not a factor in this race anymore. Which goes to show that it's not who you are but what you are. Nobody cared that a woman was insulted because if they did the same would have been said for Clinton. What they cared about was the Republican VP nominee was insulted and it was the perfect opportunity to keep victimizing her.

I haven't watched a political news segment in about two weeks.

I'll pay closer attention as the election rolls near.

They'll only be talking about the same content then as they are now anyways.

When some people have no leg to stand on in an argument, they usually play either the race or the gender card.
this naturally let's those of us who know what that tactic is for know that the one using said card has no argument but does not want what the other party is saying to become public knowledge. Since being either racist or sexist is bad, party one(not political mind you, just person) seems like the bad guy while party two does not have to give a real reason as to why they believe what they do.