This One's For The Men.

[FlyingTiger]

I figured that if that "This One's For The Girls" is as non-sexist and completely politically correct as the Hillary supporters seem to be claiming, then they surely won't have a problem with me posting my own response to that article.

(For those of you who haven't seen the thread, you can find it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4850141 )

At the end of the day, my vote comes down to the same simple truth that all men know: when it comes to getting work done and cleaning up messes, men are better than women.

This is part of the reason of why Barack Obama is the better candidate in '08. Aside from the fact that he has better judgment; he is a man. It's time we recognize what a strength that is in a Commander in Chief.

Barack is smarter, more capable, a harder worker, better multi-tasker, and most importantly, tougher than Hillary.

Let's employ the "foxhole rule." Imagine yourself in the heat of war. Bombs dropping everywhere. You're dug in. You've got limited ammo. All hell is breaking loose. Who would you rather have getting your back? Barack or Hillary?

Hands down, I would personally choose Barack because he would fight to the death. He would get the job done. He is one tough, smart cookie. In essence it's the difference between "can" and "will."

This has been my completely Hillary-approved, non-sexist opinion of the day.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

1. Sexist!

:P

[adoraz]

2. no you are missing the point

It is only not sexist when said the original way. :)

(just kidding of course)

[ellenfl]

3. At the end of the day,

my vote comes down to the same simple truth that all women know: when it comes to negotiating and cooperating, women are better than men.

actually, i'm voting for whoever wins the nomination . . . and i totally disagree with your premise. women are ALWAYS cleaning up after men. :eyes:

ellen fl

[tabasco]

4. So you admit that you are an unapologetic sexist?

That's pretty disgusting.

Maybe I missed the sarcasm?

[ellenfl]

10. mostly i was being facetious.

i did take exception to your statement that men are the cleaner-uppers . . . but i guess i missed your sarcasm as you did mine.

ellen fl

[Upton]

5. How come only men can be sexist?

I've never understood that. Particularly, when you have women ready to vote for Hillary just because of her gender and opposing Obama for the same reason. Sexism goes both ways.

[Recursion]

6. That's a more subtle question than it seems on first blush

I've done a lot more work with racial issues than gender issues, but I can give you the analogy from the racial aspect.

There was a lot of noise in the 1990's from whites about "black racism"; generally it involved complaining about Louis Farrakhan or about the existence of scholarships solely given to African Americans. A portion (not all) of the black intellectual community (the people who were less popular among whites than Cornell West or, later, Henry Louis Gates -- the DuBois's to their Booker T Washington's, as it were) put forward in response the argument that an African American cannot be racist.

This struck many whites, on both the left and the right, as patently absurd: I'm sure anyone can come up with an example in public or personal life of a black person who held negative views about whites based on race prejudice. To the white cultural consensus, negative views based on race prejudice are 'racism'.

But it need not be that simple. The problem, it was argued, is not in people's hearts and minds -- and unlike Cornell West, these writers in general had no desire to make windows into people's souls -- but with an entrenched power structure that makes prejudicial views actionable. As Spike Lee said, "racism is not prejudice: it is prejudice given impunity of action." By that argument, an African American in America could not be racist because he or she does not have impunity to act on those views.

A similar argument, as I understand it, was applied by many feminists to sexism.

[FlyingTiger]

8. ...or, in other words, "bullshit."

Albeit a type wrapped in a very thorough shield of intelligent-sounding words.

[Radical Activist]

7. Wow. Amazing how even more sexist it sounds now.

Horrible article.

[sailor65]

9. Actually,

sexism, sarcasm, or whatever aside, Obama's not who I want covering my back in a fight. Have you actually taken a good look at him? He might make a good leader, but the proverbial "Paper Bag" would seriously kick his ass. I'd be safer with my newborn niece on my 6.

:rofl:

[Sparkly]

11. Sorry -- this doesn't quite work.

There's obviously a big temptation to reverse an equation in order to prove the original one false. I've seen it many, many, many times on DU, and it doesn't work UNLESS all things are equal -- and guess what? They aren't. What you've posted is basically the conventional wisdom that's been around for ages -- and I do mean ages.

Not every woman is "better" in various ways than every man, just as not every man is physically stronger than every woman. BUT...

There are areas where women, on average and in general, are better than men. Arguably, "getting work done and cleaning up messes" is among them. Women typically do work the "second shift" more than men do (meaning housework and childcare in addition to income-earning jobs). It's possible that the struggle of being up against oppression, in its various forms, has made women stronger from the fight itself, in some ways.

As I posted in the thread you're trying to dismiss here, it doesn't mean that this one woman -- Clinton -- is necessarily 'better' than this one man -- Obama -- in various ways. But it also doesn't mean the entire idea is easily reversed to prove it all nonsense.

[FlyingTiger]

12. Sorry, "getting work done" is probably the most broad category I've ever heard.

And suggesting one gender is better than another at, quite literally, "doing things" sounds like it reeks of sexism to me.

I mean, unless, of course, a woman says it. Then it's all good.

[Sparkly]

13. Sorry, it could in fact be argued.

I gave at least one defense for that point of view. It could be argued that women (as a whole, in general, on average) do more work, and are thus better at "getting work done." ("Doing things" was not what the original poster said, I don't think. Cleaning up messes was.)

[FlyingTiger]

14. Sorry, that would be one of the most nebulous arguments in the history of DU.

You really think you can conclusively prove which gender gets more done? Please. It would devolve into abstract, factless, anectdotal arguments faster than you can say "experience."

[Sparkly]

16. You're missing the point.

The argument could occur, the debate could happen, etc. -- even if neither side "conclusively proved" their point of view. Again, I gave you a look at one side. (And again, it's not who "gets more done" -- it was getting work done and cleaning up messes.)

The point is that you can't simply reverse an equation to dismiss the original idea -- UNLESS all else is equal. So after you reverse biology, and men spend thousands upon thousands of years working against oppression, *then* simple reversal will work as a test of validity. As it is, what you've written is simply what is and has been in people's minds for a long, long, long time, and continues to this moment. The fact that women have lived with such suppositions has indeed impacted our lives -- and it's possible that in some ways, it's made us stronger.

[FlyingTiger]

17. So, unless we magically reverse biology, women can make grand, sweeping statements...

...about men and it's totally a-okay, but, without reversing biology at all, when men make grand, sweeping statements about women, or even so much as use the word "frustrated" in a context that riles up certain particularly feminist posters around here, well, then, it's just damn, dirty sexism.

Got it. Bulletproof logic there.

[Sparkly]

18. Are you really reading my posts?

People can make whatever statements they wish. You can agree with them or disagree with them.

But the playing field is NOT level. The simple reversal, as a test, doesn't work.

:shrug:

[FlyingTiger]

23. A test? Are you reading MY posts?

What have I said that I'm testing? When did I claim that the playing field is totally level?

[Sparkly]

26. ......

"I figured that if that "This One's For The Girls" is as non-sexist and completely politically correct as the Hillary supporters seem to be claiming, then they surely won't have a problem with me posting my own response to that article."

It seems to me the point of your post is that the original one -- "This One's for the Girls" -- is sexist. To prove that, you reverse the equation, substituting "men" for "women," "Barack Obama" for "Hillary Clinton," etc. This presents an argument that should give a different perspective on the first one: "This is sexist; thus the other one is sexist."

But the reversal actually reflects the long-standing status quo that's made only men presidents since the country's beginning.

Since there are in fact differences between women and men -- not only biologically, but in our experiences, the expectations and assumptions about us we contend with from birth until death, etc. -- the neat reversal doesn't work. There are measured and documented differences in our abilities AND in the work we do. I think there may even be documented differences in out pain thresholds, but I'd have to look that one up again. The point is, because of these differences -- combined with and sometimes influenced by the cultural not-level playing field -- simply reversing a statement as you have does not always work, or prove anything, or make a point. We WANT to imagine all things are equal so that such reversals work, but they aren't.

(The next argument is usually, "They won't be equal until we start treating them equally," but that doesn't work either.)

(Fwiw, I've made the same argument against this technique on other topics, as well, sometimes quite controversial -- for example, 24-year old teachers having sex with 16-year old students. I don't think it actually is the same thing when gender roles are reversed because of biological and cultural differences.)

In some cases, the technique of reversing roles to make a point CAN work, but not when there are so many other factors involved.

[FlyingSquirrel]

15. I was wondering when this one would be comin'

For the record, my wife is a lot better at cleaning up messes than I am. (She'd probably make a better president too). But you're right, that other thread was pretty much reverse sexism. Really any time you're using stereotypes it's not a good thing.

Hey, why did you go with "Men" and not "Boys"?

P.S. There was more than one thread about that, here's another one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4831298

[jmg257]

20. delete - repost elsewhere...

[JVS]

19. Will Obama appoint Hillary to his cabinet as "Secretary of get me a fucking sandwich and a beer"?

:sarcasm:

[jmg257]

22. Or Head of "Get your bitch ass in the kitchen and bake me a pie!"? KIDDING!

Old "South Park" line...

[jmg257]

21. My wife? Much better at cleaning up messes. But in a foxhole? Me ALL the way! She agrees BTW.

She is WAAY too sensitive about fighting, killing and such.

[4themind]

24. You could make the argument that both posts have...

sexist elements (in part or in whole), regardless of whether they are true are not , if sexism is defined as "Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender."; as it is in the American Heritage dictionary, and if positive aspects of behavior are assigned in part or in whole on the basis of sex. (sorry if I appear to be taking this too seriously if you're just joking though while trying to make that point :))

[CTLawGuy]

25. IBTL

NT

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. Honestly? In a foxhole? Bullets flying? Hillary.

I appreciate the point you're making of the distinction between sexism, misogyny and misandry, because I've had the wrath o' god brought down upon my shoulders more than once for making the same point.

I don't think women are any better than men. But I do think that Hillary is better than Obama.