I suppose your snark isn't as good as you think -- I didn't get it, especially not on the Gays remark (you didn't include similar "snark" on any other point.)And certainly not in the rest of what you said.
I never said McCain would be better -- find that in my comment and I'll give you a dollar.
You're typically deflecting criticism when you should be dealing with the fact that all these things are important. Sexism and misogyny leads ultimately to the deaths of women, or do you not read the news? And that is an issue on par with all the others you listed. Fundraisers which allow such things to go on are not to be taken lightly.
I just find your treatment of a serious issue to be so slight and so full of disregard that it is offensive.
The diary dealt specifically with the issue of voting for McCain instead of Obama based on one issue. It is perfectly within your right to say that sexism is more important than any other issue, if that is how you feel. I don't see where you say that in your comments. However, you are defending people that do say that very thing. They will vote for McCain because of one, and only one thing, sexism. They seem to think this trumps all other issues. Forgive me for thinking that is a silly and pointing it out in my own way.
I am defending the idea that sexism is a hugely important issue.
I speak only for myself and I don't see how you can place yourself into the heads of everyone who thinks this an important issue and say that they will vote for McCain. Have you the facts, figures, and links to back that up?
To say that sexism is a big issue isn't to say anything about where or how one will vote. And it doesn't diminish the importance of other issues.
You are missing something important here and that is that we need to deal with this issue in our party and in this campaign in order for us to be whole and to be as progressive as we'd like to think we are.
Treating it lightly is appalling.
Forgive me if I think you are being deliberately obtuse. There are web sites dedicated to the idea that electing McCain or trying to make Obama lose is justified because of the sexism during the campaign. There was a diary on the rec list yesterday where visitors from those sites poured out their hatred for Obama and the Democratic party in general. Many of them have stated flatly that they will vote for McCain based on this one issue. When it is pointed out to them that there are other things that matter as much, if not more, they counter with silly arguments about the Supreme Court not being important or say they don't care about Roe v. Wade. This diary was a direct response to those people who say they will vote for McCain. If you do not fit in that category, then you have no reason to be offended by what I said here. In that case, I was not talking to you.
I do not fit the category of which you speak. In fact, I didn't see those diaries.
But I still find the issue of sexism important and I am still angered when people don't take it seriously.
Criticizing one's party is an effort to make it better. Just as we have the right to criticize our country because we love it.
I don't really care who or what you were reacting to, I do care that in your reaction you made light of an important issue.
I made light of people who think voting for McCain is the way to deal with this issue. In the process, I made the issue seem less important than it really is. Unfortunately, that is not a surprise when dealing with people that do the opposite - make it more important than it is.
It seems like you feel disturbed because the diarist tried to use humor to point out how some priorities seem out of whack in the PUMA camp. Specifically, it seems like you don't think the issue of sexism should be treated lightly. It shouldn't, you're right. Nor should racism, homophobia, etc...
I think the point of the diary is that all of these social ills exist, and we, as a society will be still working them out long after the youngest of us is dead. The standard PUMA argument that because sexism still exists in our society and it was present in a variety of forms in the primary we have to stop everything and punish Obama even though he is more likely to promote progress toward equality on all fronts. It does not seem that you "buy" the PUMA line of reasoning, but this diary was a response to it, and yes, there has been an invasion of late of people spouting off this illogical argument in one form or another.
Think about it this way: It is my belief that racism cost Obama more votes than sexism cost Clinton, even if sexism in the public sphere was more noticeable. I am aware that this assertion is difficult to prove, but it is my opinion. If a group of people were continually bashing Clinton (whether as a senator or a nominee) day in and day out because racism exists and showed up in the primary and cost Obama votes, would that be rational? If people were attempting to paint Clinton as something she isn't and slamming her every move without every acknowledging her efforts to improve our county because they are so angry about racism in the primary, and it seemed that no amount of reason could get through to this group, wouldn't it be at least in the realm of "ok" to try to use humor to shine a light on how strange their behavior and priorities are? I'm not saying that you're wrong about sexism being a serious issue. I agree with you on that. I just think you're wrong that this snark is an attack on the seriousness of sexism. Instead, it's an attack on a group of irrational and deluded people who want America to suffer through more Republican rule to punish Obama for sexism in society.
Thanks for the very reasonable and reasoned reply. I've been called a troll (in this thread) for being critical on this issue. So I appreciate your very understanding reply.
I understand what you are saying. And, having a good sense of humor, I also understand your points about using snark/humor.
But as a gay person, I have had more than my fill of people using humor in a way that is not very humorous. They think they are being funny and pointing up the issues but in reality they are being hurtful.
Yes, the use of humor is a valuable tool -- but as you so rightly point out, there are a lot of people upset about this issue. And perhaps using humor only serves to make them angrier right now. If the objective is to win them over, then maybe a little understanding will go a longer way.
Also, I am not a fan of using humor when it comes to such serious issues.
Would the diarist use humor about the Iraq war? Probably not. And, using your example of racism, do you really think anyone would find that humorous?
I'm very interested in your points about racism and sexism in the primaries and have been studying just that.
yes, I know what you mean about homophobic humor. As a public school teacher (and just as an adult in our society), I encounter it and have to educate about it all the time. We're way behind on that issue in our society.
I am going to make one last effort.
You do realize that snark is the use of sarcasm to make a point? Sarcasm is when you say something when you mean exactly the opposite. With that in mind, it becomes obvious that by adding that extra comment about gays, I was really saying just the opposite.
The whole diary is written from the point of view of someone who is advocating for voting for McCain based on the single issue of sexism displayed towards Hillary Clinton. This (not so) imaginary person made several offensive comments in the diary.
Since this diary was written from the viewpoint of someone I disagree with completely then it stands to reason that I also disagree with the gay comment. What is so hard to understand about that?
I don't need the condescending reply. I understand these terms better than you do -- which is why I fail to see the humor in your piece. It's not well constructed or written.
In any event, I was replying to the other commenter and didn't expect or want another of your comments or efforts to talk down to me.
Your effort at humor fell flat with me. There is no way that you can say that the whole thing is snark -- it doesn't read that way.
Be that as it may -- you have your point of view and I have mine. We can agree to disagree.
This is a truly breathtaking reply.
I applaud Indie for not giving it the response it deserves.
It was obvious that this discussion wasn't going anywhere but down. I didn't see any sense in starting a flame war. The other person obviously didn't see the satire in my diary. There was no way to explain it to him/her unless they wanted to see it. Fifty people rec'd this diary, so I don't think the humor was all that subtle. Oh well, can't win them all. S/he said one thing that made sense in that last post. We will have to agree to disagree.
I suppose your snark isn't as good as you think -- I didn't get it,
especially not on the Gays remark (you didn't include similar "snark" on any other point.)And certainly not in the rest of what you said.
Nowhere did I equate the issues -- what I said, should you read my comments carefully, is that sexism is a serious issue. Sometimes it even leads to physical harm and death -- ask any woman who has suffered beatings and worse and see how they feel.
Of course other issues are more immediately serious for some people. But that doesn't mean that we should make light of other issues.
And that's all I was saying.
You know what else leads to the death of women? Voting for a war that kills them.
It is overwhelmingly women and children that suffer far more than men during times of war. You can also add that to the years of sanctions they suffered and died for and of course the previous gulf war. Whole generations growing up faced with starvation and the consistent ravages of war, and those are the lucky ones (the ones who survive).
I remain unconvinced that one comedian could inflict the level of damage that was knowingly inflicted by Bush, McCain and yes (sorry guys) Hillary Clinton on women and children.
