US TRAGEDY IN THE SIXTIES & SIXTIES

[rigney]

Well, nothing like the Civil War has happened to America since then, but unfortunately, there seems to always be something like it or worse happening somewhere in the world.

 

Was just comparing two great sitting presidents being assassinated a hundred years apart, and to know both assassins were fanatics, not nuts.

[Athena]

This discussion of slavery is assuming to me. When I came of age women were still barred from some colleges and some careers. One of my professors announced to the class that any female who got married would receive a C. Of course I got married, because my father insisted the only thing I should study was home economic, because men earn more, and women therefore, should stay home and be full time homemakers. I was raised to accept this, but felt angry about it, and never returned to the class where the professor said a married female would a C, and sure enough, he gave me a C even thought I had not earned it. Even if a woman was doing the same job as a man, she was paid less. There was a lot of work women were not allowed to do, even into the 1970 recession. I leaved in an area where most jobs were male jobs, and remember economic struggle well. This have changed a lot since then.

 

A journalist interviewed pioneer women a good hundred years ago, and some were outraged about the big stink made about slavery, while their own slavery was ignored. When they came of age is common for a poor family to marry off 14 year old daughters to older men who wanted a wife to cook and clean for them. It was made law that these men could hit their wives to make they behave. There was no economic opportunity for these women, and their slavery was very real. To rub burn salt into the wound, this had the church's blessing as God's will and holy marriage.

 

I remember the first women's liberation magazine, New Women, and this strange feeling that flooded through me when I the word "she" where we had always used the word "he".

 

If we are going to speak of slavery, can include the female history of economically, politically and socially enforced slavery? Then the cost of our liberation and need to continue improving our social organization.

[rigney]

This discussion of slavery is assuming to me. When I came of age women were still barred from some colleges and some careers. One of my professors announced to the class that any female who got married would receive a C. Of course I got married, because my father insisted the only thing I should study was home economic, because men earn more, and women therefore, should stay home and be full time homemakers. I was raised to accept this, but felt angry about it, and never returned to the class where the professor said a married female would a C, and sure enough, he gave me a C even thought I had not earned it. Even if a woman was doing the same job as a man, she was paid less. There was a lot of work women were not allowed to do, even into the 1970 recession. I leaved in an area where most jobs were male jobs, and remember economic struggle well. This have changed a lot since then.

 

A journalist interviewed pioneer women a good hundred years ago, and some were outraged about the big stink made about slavery, while their own slavery was ignored. When they came of age is common for a poor family to marry off 14 year old daughters to older men who wanted a wife to cook and clean for them. It was made law that these men could hit their wives to make they behave. There was no economic opportunity for these women, and their slavery was very real. To rub burn salt into the wound, this had the church's blessing as God's will and holy marriage.

 

I remember the first women's liberation magazine, New Women, and this strange feeling that flooded through me when I the word "she" where we had always used the word "he".

 

If we are going to speak of slavery, can include the female history of economically, politically and socially enforced slavery? Then the cost of our liberation and need to continue improving our social organization.

 

I can relate to the late thirties onward. My Mom to be, only 16 at the time; told me of working at a B.F. Goodrich plant in Chillicothe, Ohio during the 1st world war, making gas masks. Of course, when the war ended, so did the women's jobs. Other than being teachers or a small part of the medical profession, women were little more than second class citizens. Then WW2 came along, and again women were needed to fill the gap. I believe Tillie the Toiler and Rosy the Riviter were inroads that would never allow women to be denied or beaten down again. Yes, you are right. Shamefully, until women's suffrage came along, females were little more than chattel. But, can anything be done about rights today in countries that religeously mandate women be considered nothing more than slaves? Edited February 10, 2011 by rigney

[lemur]

Of course you don't think so, but you're not one of the moderates who will determine the next president. We won't be voting for Sarah Palin.

 

BTW, if Sarah Palin were to become President she would have to represent liberals and progressives and members of the media too. That means listening to their concerns, finding common ground, and implementing solutions that assuage the majority (NOT her base). That's the job. And she's shown zero sign of being capable of it, even to the extent of deliberately insulting large swaths of the American voting public.

 

So she will never be President.

I've been predicting the appeal of a republican "soccer mom"-identity presidential candidate as the next step in presidential identity politics. Yes, now she's establishing herself as tough and not too compromising to rally conservatives who favor a strong stance against liberals. Once she begins to emerge from republican competitors, though, she will most likely begin to show her softer mothering side and this will appeal to moderates who are sick of party-standoffs and uncompromising men. Obviously her campaign planners will profit by building up to this point, since it will become her main criticism by the time of high-campaigning that she and conservatives generally are so uncompromising. At that point, she will unveil the secret weapon of bipartisan-appeal with feminine compromise/balance diplomacy. This will then become her cross to bear in office, since it usually seems to be the case that whatever a president gets elected for gets deconstructed by public critique. Then, by the time her term(s) are over, the public will be completely sick of feminine compromise/balance diplomacy and they'll be clamoring for a leader who isn't driven by compromise.

[Pangloss]

I've been predicting the appeal of a republican "soccer mom"-identity presidential candidate as the next step in presidential identity politics. Yes, now she's establishing herself as tough and not too compromising to rally conservatives who favor a strong stance against liberals. Once she begins to emerge from republican competitors, though, she will most likely begin to show her softer mothering side and this will appeal to moderates who are sick of party-standoffs and uncompromising men. Obviously her campaign planners will profit by building up to this point, since it will become her main criticism by the time of high-campaigning that she and conservatives generally are so uncompromising. At that point, she will unveil the secret weapon of bipartisan-appeal with feminine compromise/balance diplomacy.

Well, my two bits only, but I wouldn't put too much money on that. She has too much partisan baggage to make an appeal to the middle. A politician who goes out of their way to denigrate and demonize is not able to then go back and say they would like to sit down at the table with the same groups they denigrated and demonized and listen to their concerns. It's just not believable. That's why politicians avoid that sort of thing. They tend to leave it to commentators and pundits.

 

She made her mistake shortly after Fox News Channel installed a studio in her home. Instead of sitting back and firing away at the left and the "mainstream media", she could have taken that opportunity to find common ground and across-the-board appeal. She's full-on attack, 24/7, that one. There's no half-way. Any question about her comments towards the other side is deflected with an excuse about how she's constantly under attack, followed closely by another attack on the other side.

 

In short, it's exactly what people hate about politics. If she were a liberal it would be over already, simply because liberalism isn't as popular as conservatism in this country -- the majority would have already relegated her to the dust heap of history. But because she's conservative and says things the like to hear, they're kinda waiting it out a bit.

 

But they won't elected her president.

[lemur]

Well, my two bits only, but I wouldn't put too much money on that. She has too much partisan baggage to make an appeal to the middle. A politician who goes out of their way to denigrate and demonize is not able to then go back and say they would like to sit down at the table with the same groups they denigrated and demonized and listen to their concerns. It's just not believable. That's why politicians avoid that sort of thing. They tend to leave it to commentators and pundits.

Rationally, I would agree with you. But I'm just always looking at how a politician is going to completely break a mold by going completely against traditions/norms, etc. This worked for Obama in his approach to leveling about issues in ways that were thought to be "not done" by many. This is a negative effect of popular media, imo, where basically anyone who does anything shocking gets viewed as essentially brave and innovative for having done so. Isn't there some similar examples of politicians cursing, e.g. didn't Biden say the F-word at some point; and what about all the blatant accusations of "liar!" that seemed to be flying around? In general, I think the public is hungry for this sort of thing. The tension with it is that there's a whole other critical segment that uses public disdain as an impetus for social/self-control by politicians. So, e.g., what you said that blatant attacks doesn't win you points with moderates COULD cause many voters to dislike Palin for doing something distasteful. I think there are just different publics where values of taste and decorum are concerned. Some like them and some like them broken and "in your face."

 

She made her mistake shortly after Fox News Channel installed a studio in her home. Instead of sitting back and firing away at the left and the "mainstream media", she could have taken that opportunity to find common ground and across-the-board appeal. She's full-on attack, 24/7, that one. There's no half-way. Any question about her comments towards the other side is deflected with an excuse about how she's constantly under attack, followed closely by another attack on the other side.

Right, but again I think there is a large public in support of people who don't pander and sweet-talk and kiss media butt. Of course this is somewhat fake, because the rebellious stances such politicians take are always relatively mainstream. Imagine a radical politician taking this approach with an extremely unpopular view. They would be branded a terrorist or who knows what. However, when someone takes pretty mainstream ideas and pursues those like a radical extremist, the public eats it up. It's like the reason they hate terrorists so much is because their jealous of their energy level and tactics (and of course they're afraid of people being that committed and energetic about something they're not for). Too many people embrace the tactic of power by repressing difference instead of embracing and engaging it as a means to progress through dialogue.

 

In short, it's exactly what people hate about politics. If she were a liberal it would be over already, simply because liberalism isn't as popular as conservatism in this country -- the majority would have already relegated her to the dust heap of history. But because she's conservative and says things the like to hear, they're kinda waiting it out a bit.

 

But they won't elected her president.

You're right. Conservative candidates don't have the high expectations put on them as democrats do because the democratic party is viewed as a strong government party, so people expect a leader of structural insitutionalism. A conservative/republican candidate, on the other hand, is supposed to be more of a deconstructionist of government, so their main function is to stand up against pro-government politics and represent various aspects of popular thought in order to be criticized for it. It's almost as though republicans would put her in the hot seat just to draw anti-government criticism from the left, because this is a way they can get more people fed up with authoritarianism and government, which puts people on their side. Yes, there are many people who favor conservatism/republicanism but can't quite escape the lure of authoritarian structure and strong-government, but those people usually get what they want via military funding, which the republicans never seem to cut because it fits their logic of protecting freedom instead of structuring it from within. Anyway, I see the logic in the politics even though it all boils down to people developing their politics in dialogue with what they see representatives and others doing via the media. I really don't think actual governing has much to do with democratic (central) governance. It is more about representing the idea of government to the people so they can formulate stances and approaches to self-governance.

 

 

 

 

[Pangloss]

But I'm just always looking at how a politician is going to completely break a mold by going completely against traditions/norms, etc. This worked for Obama in his approach to leveling about issues in ways that were thought to be "not done" by many. This is a negative effect of popular media, imo, where basically anyone who does anything shocking gets viewed as essentially brave and innovative for having done so.

Interesting.

 

... the rebellious stances such politicians take are always relatively mainstream. Imagine a radical politician taking this approach with an extremely unpopular view. They would be branded a terrorist or who knows what. However, when someone takes pretty mainstream ideas and pursues those like a radical extremist, the public eats it up.

Also interesting. (cof) (<-- embarassed cough at having nothing substantive to add, but wanting to acknowledge the point anyway)

 

Conservative candidates don't have the high expectations put on them as democrats do because the democratic party is viewed as a strong government party, so people expect a leader of structural insitutionalism. A conservative/republican candidate, on the other hand, is supposed to be more of a deconstructionist of government, so their main function is to stand up against pro-government politics and represent various aspects of popular thought in order to be criticized for it.

Hm... okay, I think I see what you're getting at here, and the Palin-as-target angle is (cof) interesting.