2024 US elections stuff

[Woollybear]

Not only deference, although the deference is rife. Listen to how people--everywhere in the US, even progressive liberals--speak in conversation. They appeal to authority--but 90% of the time it is to white male authority. (Oh, what a great author! Oh, I love that filmmaker! Oh, isn't he the chef that opened that new restaurant?) They turn conversations over to the men. They expect women to help with the cooking and the cleaning, but not the men. I have a hard time "unseeing" such bias, these days.

But also, for college graduates, men edge out women on starting pay. My kids are in this group. Pair up a situation like that with simple biology (women in their twenties are often beginning to wonder if they want to have children, and if the answer is "maybe"--even if they think of pushing it out ten years--this becomes part of the equation), and the idea of being a traditional at-home caregiver exerts an influence.

If I could do it all over again, I might make some drastic changes to how my life played out. And yet no life is easy, as far as I can tell.

 

[Alessandra Kelley]

In my experience and observation, in churches it’s generally women who do the organizing, the setting up, the cleaning, the recordkeeping, and the support, and it’s men who run things.

This is true on the Left, in Progessive churches as well as in conservative ones. It’s not limited to the Right.

Come to think of it, this was also my observation of the various extremely Left-wing social movements for liberation and rights back when I was a tot. Men ran things while women did all the hard work and the organizing and basically mothered the men, making sandwiches and doing laundry and cleaning house, but also being prettily dressed long-haired (or big-afroed) readily available sexual partners for the men.

Stokely Carmichael infamously said say the only position for women in the civil rights movement was “prone”. Yuck.

 

[CWatts]

The top of her head was at like, her husband's belly-button level. She's the US Senator in the picture!

Pretty darn close to something the GOP impeached Bill Clinton over....

 

[Roxxsmom]

This is an interesting observation because if you recall the family photo they released (that got so many people talking about the sterility of the kitchen), my immediate observation was how childishly small (size-wise) it made her look. Intentionally. There's her enormous NFL-player husband looming over her, his hand on top of her shoulder in a domineering gesture, her obviously quite-tall children standing above her, and her....seated. The top of her head was at like, her husband's belly-button level. She's the US Senator in the picture!

If you search other photos of their entire family, yes, she's not tall, but the top of her head hits his shoulder. In many of them he is seated, or leaning down, or she is at least standing. It was so weird to me that they actively chose to present that image of her family, with Britt as a small, vulnerable-appearing and -sounding person.

At least now, knowing a little more about the audience she was actually speaking to, I guess I see why they did it, but it's still icky.

It's also possible that they are doing this deliberately to emphasize that even though she's the one in the Senate, he's still "the man" of the family. Women are allowed to have power if they still come off as "traditionally" feminine and aren't too intimidating to men or unrelatable to ordinary women who have little power.

The offhand comments about one person in a relationship needing to be dominant, and the dominant one being "the man," or "wearing the pants in the family" aren't just limited to evangelical Christians either.

 

[Roxxsmom]

In my experience and observation, in churches it’s generally women who do the organizing, the setting up, the cleaning, the recordkeeping, and the support, and it’s men who run things.

This is true on the Left, in Progessive churches as well as in conservative ones. It’s not limited to the Right.

My MIL's church has had several female pastors over the year (their current lead pastor is male but the assistant pastor is female, but they've had at least one female lead pastor in the past), and she was the so-called "lay leader" for a number of years. Not sure if that role was more about organizing and setting up, or if she had administrative duties. They certainly don't have issues with women standing up and speaking

It may depend on denomination. But I am just going off general impressions. I don't know how the dynamics play out on a day-to-day basis. Traditionally, women definitely volunteer their time heavily in churches, whereas men (whose professions are considered more important) lacked the time for it. Not sure how my MIL had the time when she worked full time at a job you have to take home with you and do on weekends as well (all that grading and lesson planning).

Come to think of it, this was also my observation of the various extremely Left-wing social movements for liberation and rights back when I was a tot. Men ran things while women did all the hard work and the organizing and basically mothered the men, making sandwiches and doing laundry and cleaning house, but also being prettily dressed long-haired (or big-afroed) readily available sexual partners for the men.

Stokely Carmichael infamously said say the only position for women in the civil rights movement was “prone”. Yuck.

There were a ton of women active and important in the Civil Rights movement, and they are only now starting to get the attention they should have had all along. They were most emphatically not just about pouring tea or making phone calls either.

I have always wondered if some of the machismo and dismissiveness toward women in the Civil Rights movement by men was in part because racism is so oppressive (and therefore emasculating) for men that they had to empower themselves by over asserting their male privileges over the women in their communities. Also, of course, society in general was very sexist back then, and being a victim of discrimination and bigotry doesn't automatically make someone more empathetic toward people who have experienced discrimination and bigotry of a different type.

 

[Introversion]

RNC weighs limiting NBC’s access at this summer’s convention

The Republican National Committee is weighing whether to restrict NBC’s access to this summer’s convention, following the network’s decision to drop former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel as a contributor.

NBC should just drop coverage of the convention, if the RNC restricts their reporters’ access.

 

[lizmonster]

RNC weighs limiting NBC’s access at this summer’s convention


NBC should just drop coverage of the convention, if the RNC restricts their reporters’ access.

Every news network should drop coverage of the convention. Do we really think any surprises are coming out of there?

 

[Introversion]

Do we really think any surprises are coming out of there?

Only bad ones.

 

[ElaineA]

I'm in the camp of "the more people who witness the crazed extremism with their own eyes, the better."

We think, because we're so aware of it, that everyone knows. But they don't. There are 4 years-worth of new presidential-year voters, for one. Young people who might very well be repulsed by rally cries about the intent to ban abortion, about attacking the institutions where they're going to school, about outlawing LGBTQ+ folks, and deporting Hispanic people, and demeaning Black and brown people. These things need to be heard directly from the source. The J6 hearings show that otherwise disengaged people do pay attention, and do hear things they never heard before.

This country is chock-full of people who are proud they know nothing about politics. They need to hear what is on offer. And it won't just be Trump speaking. They'll get to hear from the whole MAGA project. When Stephen Miller gets up there and starts his Goebbels routine, he's going to open some eyes. In horror.

 

[Meg]

Every news network should drop coverage of the convention.

The way the media breathlessly covered the Republican primaries, I wouldn't count on it.

 

[RedRajah]

Even if/when folks see it, they still may not care.

 

[Meg]

I'm in the camp of "the more people who witness the crazed extremism with their own eyes, the better."

Agreed, but only if the media get free access. They should not be covering a curated version, which would amount to free advertising.

 

[ElaineA]

Even if/when folks see it, they still may not care.

No, most will probably not, but some might.

I'm not saying show it wall-to-wall un-moderated, but I do think a coverage moratorium only reinforces the silo effect.

 

[Sage]

Every news network should drop coverage of the convention. Do we really think any surprises are coming out of there?

Does that go for both conventions? Unlikely there will be surprises in the Democratic convention either.

 

[Introversion]

I'm not saying show it wall-to-wall un-moderated, but I do think a coverage moratorium only reinforces the silo effect.

If we have a free press, then it won’t have unreasonable restrictions placed upon it.

The RNC is only floating a trial balloon here, but it feels like another step towards fascism to say that this or that mainstream media outlet might not be granted the same access as other mainstream media outlets?

And it’s really past time for those mainstream outlets to start calling out the GOP’s march towards fascism.

 

[CMBright]

If we have a free press, then it won’t have unreasonable restrictions placed upon it.

Very much this. Either report on stuff that is open to the public or report on the fact that they aren't covering it because they would only have limited access, with speculation about "what do they have to hide".

By public stuff, I mean I wouldn't expect any reporter to have unlimited access to areas like private greenrooms. Just everywhere attendees of the convention have access.

 

[ElaineA]

If we have a free press, then it won’t have unreasonable restrictions placed upon it.

The RNC is only floating a trial balloon here, but it feels like another step towards fascism to say that this or that mainstream media outlet might not be granted the same access as other mainstream media outlets?

And it’s really past time for those mainstream outlets to start calling out the GOP’s march towards fascism.

Agree in every respect, especially that last part.

Alas, NBC leadership's recent conduct implies they seem to prefer to hedge by getting in bed with the fascists rather than calling them out.

 

[lizmonster]

I get everybody’s point, but I’m genuinely torn here. Trump is a publicity hound, and his people react to his outrage machine. There’s something to be said for shunning. And if the only press allowed is going to have their reporting curtailed, I’m not sure what the point is.

 

[CWatts]

Only bad ones.

Perfect time and place to bring back Dateline NBC's To Catch a Predator. "Mr. Gaetz, why don't you have a seat right there?"

May all the consenting adult sex workers ply their trade safely, though. I hear the RNC is especially lucrative for gay escorts.

 

[MaeZe]

Consider this is a typical move to get attention for the upcoming convention by threatening to ban certain news agencies.


=

 

[JJ Litke]

I’d guess that it’s also an intimidation tactic, which will help ensure the media is cowed into giving them the weak both-sides coverage they want. They won’t have to curtail the media, the media will do it themselves.

 

[ElaineA]

I’d guess that it’s also an intimidation tactic, which will help ensure the media is cowed into giving them the weak both-sides coverage they want. They won’t have to curtail the media, the media will do it themselves.

There's a reason Lesson One of Timothy Snyder's On Tyranny is, "Don't obey in advance." Alas...

 

[Introversion]

And it’s really past time for those mainstream outlets to start calling out the GOP’s march towards fascism.

Here’s one.

Our Trump reporting upsets some readers, but there aren’t two sides to facts

A more-than-occasional arrival in the email these days is a question expressed two ways, one with dripping condescension and the other with courtesy:Why don’t our opinion platforms treat Donald Trump and other politicians exactly the same way. Some phrase it differently, asking why we demean the former president’s supporters in describing his behavior as monstrous, insurrectionist and authoritarian.

I feel for those who write. They believe in Trump and want their local news source to recognize what they see in him.

The angry writers denounce me for ignoring what they call the Biden family crime syndicate and criminality far beyond that of Trump. They quote news sources of no credibility as proof the mainstream media ignores evidence that Biden, not Trump, is the criminal dictator.

The courteous writers don’t go down that road. They politely ask how we can discount the passions and beliefs of the many people who believe in Trump.

This is a tough column to write, because I don’t want to demean or insult those who write me in good faith. I’ve started it a half dozen times since November but turned to other topics each time because this needle hard to thread. No matter how I present it, I’ll offend some thoughtful, decent people.

The north star here is truth. We tell the truth, even when it offends some of the people who pay us for information.

The truth is that Donald Trump undermined faith in our elections in his false bid to retain the presidency. He sparked an insurrection intended to overthrow our government and keep himself in power. No president in our history has done worse.

This is not subjective. We all saw it. Plenty of leaders today try to convince the masses we did not see what we saw, but our eyes don’t deceive. (If leaders began a yearslong campaign today to convince us that the Baltimore bridge did not collapse Tuesday morning, would you ever believe them?) Trust your eyes. Trump on Jan. 6 launched the most serious threat to our system of government since the Civil War. You know that. You saw it.

The facts involving Trump are crystal clear, and as news people, we cannot pretend otherwise, as unpopular as that might be with a segment of our readers. There aren’t two sides to facts. People who say the earth is flat don’t get space on our platforms. If that offends them, so be it.
…

 

[RichardGarfinkle]

Here’s one.

Our Trump reporting upsets some readers, but there aren’t two sides to factsA more-than-occasional arrival in the email these days is a question expressed two ways, one with dripping condescension and the other with courtesy:Why don’t our opinion platforms treat Donald Trump and other politicians exactly the same way. Some phrase it differently, asking why we demean the former president’s supporters in describing his behavior as monstrous, insurrectionist and authoritarian.

That's very good to read.


This "The courteous writers don’t go down that road. They politely ask how we can discount the passions and beliefs of the many people who believe in Trump."
infuriates me. The idea that passion and belief should be weighed in the same measure as fact, that reality should be dismissed because we must be nice to belief and intensity is a recurrent source of disaster. Nothing keeps prejudice and cruelty going in a society generation after generation like niceness to those who care only about their own beliefs.

 

[BenPanced]

And it’s really past time for those mainstream outlets to start calling out the GOP’s march towards fascism.

MSNBC's Nicole Wallace tosses the script on air and states outright, "(the screaming flatulent colostomy bag) broke the rule of law."