I never made it to “Guys.” The Woman Is A Sucking Void stuff in “Reads” was where I quit.

Oh, tha’s right — “Reads” comes before “Guys.”

So let me revise my advice — read as far as “Jaka’s Story,” or maybe “Melmoth.” After that, Sim goes over the edge with misogyny, and much of it becomes unreadable.

But, frankly, there’s misogyny in TONS of ordinary, mainstream books, movies, and TV shows, including stuff that many feminists I know enjoy. Sim’s stuff didn’t “go off the deep end” — that is, go totally batshit with woman-hating — until after “Guys,” imo.

Eh. Depends on how neurotic sensitive you are, probably. I started getting misogyny hinkies about his work halfway through “Jaka’s Story,” myself. And I thought “Reads” was where he went off the deep end.

I agree, however, that “High Society” is the best place to start.

(We now return you to your actual topic.)

And you don’t think that equally violent behaviors have been carried out in the name of sexism or homophobia/heterosexism? Witch burnings, anti-gay murders, and many incidents of domestic violence.

There is a tendency, as your comment reveals, to allow sexism and heterosexism/homophobia to include a broader set of attitudes, behaviors and institutional arrangements, where as racism is reserved for only the most violent behaviors.

BTW-Some of my best friends are racists. :) I mean that.

In my own view heterosexism is a better a broader term, but I’m just using the terms that were given above.

Sadly ignorant perception of the realities of working in large, complex organizations - probably more complex that any in civilian life - but I can’t blame you too much for this, since the misperception is so common.

“Who is considered more of a war hero: the pilot of the Enola Gay who destroyed a city or Hugh Thompson who saved many lives at My Lai? ”

Considering that the bombing of Hiroshima saved hundreds of thousands more lives than thompson’s actions at My lai ever possibly could, you make the call. What was heroic about Thompson was not just the lives he saved, but the way he did it, against his own people. That does take real courage.

RonF,

“unreasonable fear ” - no, the problem is people’s illiteracy, when they think that “phobia” means fear. There is no single equivalent inEnglsih. “Hydrophobia” does not mean fear of water. “Fear and loathing” comes a lot closer.

“Clinton, in her husband’s White House (and before that when her husband was Governor), was certainly the equivalent of a cabinet member,”

Unless she was confirmed after Senate hearings, that puts Clinton (actual) on about the same level, though nowhere to the same degree, as Bush II when it comes to respect for the Constitution. It’s about as bad as Reagan consulting Nancy, who consulted her astrologer.

Whether it is a bug or a feature, the fact remains–and it is a fact acknowledged in 8th grade Texas history/government classes, not a “liberal conspiracy” thing–that the governor has little power and therefore the governor of Texas gains little experience in governing from his/her position. Furthermore, ever voter in Texas knows that perfectly well. Yet Texas went for Bush big time. Twice. This suggests that the average voter, whoever he/she may be, doesn’t really give a squat about experience and would rather go for…whatever Bush’s appeal was supposed to be. (Sorry, but I’ve never really been sure what that appeal was. Even people I know who voted for him–twice–mumble about “better than the alternative” when asked.)

Obama isn’t the probable nominee for the Democrats because he’s black. Some people may v0te for him because of his race. Others may vote against him because of his race. Others don’t care. But he’s winning because his message resonnates with voters (at least Democratic primary voters), he’s an excellent speaker, and he hasn’t done anything mind bogglingly stupid that would make people back away from him (see Clinton’s remarks.)

Also; I ask whether it’s explicitly designed to deny power to the government overall, or simply to ensure that it’s concentrated in the city and county governments as much as possible?

Most cities in Texas are minimally governed as well. Which is why Texas frequently comes in #48 or 49 in education, health, water quality, etc. The standard teaching in Texas is that the governmental organization with the most power in Texas is the Texas Railroad Commission. Why the TRC? One of the things they regulate is oil. If Bush had been head of the TRC for 5 years, I’d agree that he had some real experience governing. But as governor? Not so much.

And yeah, I’ve been looking into getting my hands on Sim’s first books. At what volume does he go off the deep end that I should avoid?

He doesn’t really go off the deep end until after “Guys.”

Also, to get a real idea if you like his work, it’s a good idea to start with volume 2, “High Society,” rather than volume 1.

If you want people to stop treating the ____ist label like an accusation of severe misconduct, you have to start acting like the ___ist label describes someone who has made a major mistake. Conversely, if you start treating “_____ist” like it’s no big deal then, well, you can’t use it to condemn people any more.

But you can’t simultaneously use a word as an insult, and expect people not to give a shit when they get the label.

You just can’t. It makes no sense.

In brief, Sailorman observes that we have at least two definitions of the word ____ist: one positive and one normative. As quoted, Ferraro (and politicians generally?) refer to the normative usage: “_____ist” is an insulting epithet. In contrast, here Amp refers to the positive usage: “____ist” merely describes someone’s attributes, no different than the word “nearsighted.”

I have regularly opined on the harm done by stigmatizing terms such as “racist.” Perhaps stigma – guilt, shame, etc. – are necessary components to cultural change. But they are not without cost. You can well imagine how willing people will be to join a “national dialog about race” if they anticipate being flogged for their troubles.

Clinton, in her husband’s White House (and before that when her husband was Governor), was certainly the equivalent of a cabinet member,

That’s non-obvious. She had never gone through Senate examination and confirmation, had no specific portfolio of responsibilities and was not accountable to either the Congress or the public for her actions. She also had no particularly sizable staff to supervise (consider just how many people work for the State Department or the DoD or the other Cabinet executive departments). The best you can say for Hillary in Bill’s WH was that she was a senior advisor.

Dianne:

The constitution of Texas was written explicitly to avoid giving the government any power.

That’s not a bug, that’s a feature.

Also; I ask whether it’s explicitly designed to deny power to the government overall, or simply to ensure that it’s concentrated in the city and county governments as much as possible?

Who is considered more of a war hero: the pilot of the Enola Gay who destroyed a city or Hugh Thompson who saved many lives at My Lai?

While the pilot of the Enola Gay is notable for commanding the air crew that dropped the first atomic bomb, I’m unaware of him being considered a hero by anyone. OTOH, here is a man who has been recently recognized as a war hero, and the only person he killed was himself. A fighter doesn’t have to kill anyone to be considered a hero.

Army Private First Class Ross McGinnis was posthumously awarded the military’s highest award on Monday, the Medal of Honor. In December of 2006, McGinnis unit was patrolling Baghdad when an insurgent lobbed a grenade into his Humvee. Warning the others inside his vehicle, McGinnis jumped onto the grenade, taking the full impact of the blast. Private McGinnis was 19 years old.

He could have been the only person to survive the blast; instead, he chose to be the only person to be killed by it.

I’d like to know more about John McCain’s actions during the fire on the U.S.S. Forrestal in ‘67. You can Google “Forrestal fire”, but the short version is that in 1967, while hosting air missions against North Vietnam, an electrical fault coupled with error and neglect caused a missle to launch from a fighter while it was still on the flight deck of the Forrestal. It hit one of the planes waiting to be launched. It caught on fire. The fire started setting off the bombs on the planes. Hundreds of people were killed or injured, and the ship was out of service for months. John McCain was in one of the planes that was engulfed in flames; he escaped by opening the cockpit and climbing down the nose and the nose probe. I’d imagine he was involved in the fire-fighting effort as well. There were many heroes that day to keep that fire from spreading and sending the Forrestal to the bottom with all hands; 164 of them died doing it.

Sergio:

Having experience as senators or governors hardly qualifies anybody to be president. The world is full of assholes with a long political experience. What should qualify anybody to be president (assuming anybody has the right) is the quality of their proposals.

While it’s true that the world is full of assholes with long political experience, it’s also full of well-meaning folks with high-minded principles that haven’t got the executive abilities to manage their way out of a wet paper bag and thus have no hope of getting any of their principles actually enacted as legislation or executive policies. The idea being presented is that political experience is highly desirable to be a President, not that it’s sufficient in itself.

All:

Part of your problem with people denying that they are “homophobic” is that people who are otherwise unfamiliar with the term presume it means the same thing as all other “-phobic” terms do, and figure that they don’t qualify because they don’t have an unreasonable fear of gays. Should they then find out the rhetorical game being played with the term they discredit the users.

And yes, Obama is very well-spoken, by ANY standard, not just “he’s a black dude who isn’t a mushmouthed gansta”.

Oh, and “this painful exchange” is a dead link.
edit: nm, it healed.

And yeah, I’ve been looking into getting my hands on Sim’s first books. At what volume does he go off the deep end that I should avoid?

mythago Writes:
June 1st, 2008 at 9:34 pm

What do YOU picture when I tell you I spoke with a racist homophobic sexist bigot today?

An average, middle-class white person of the sort I work with, who wouldn’t dream of openly discriminating and certainly is sure that they would never THEMSELVES do anything sexist, racist or bigoted - but who has a tendency to make comments like ‘geez, why do they have to CALL it marriage?’ or ‘Obama is so well-spoken’ or ‘ well of course there aren’t a lot of girls in the science, look at my daughter, she hates math.’

I applaud you. though in all seriousness, i think you’re rare. And indeed, i was referring to a random group of people, most of whom I know at least reasonably well and none of which would fall into the “monster” category.

Do you think you’re representative? I have known a lot of people across a wide range of the political spectrum, and IMO when most people hear “racist homophobic sexist bigot” they don’t think of someone who’s not an asshole, much less of that sweet 80-year-old neighbor whose driveway they shovel in the winter.

The flip side of the I’m-not-a-monster argument is that if I choose to assume that anyone prejudiced does so intentionally because they are a monster, I can, quite conveniently, protect myself from ever having to consider whether or not I have any bigoted tendencies.

Yes, absolutely. My point is that this is an entirely understandable way to react and taht it can be avoided. I don’t think it’s necessarily an issue of protection per se as much as it is a crucial semantics issue taht makes it impossible to discuss the topic safely.

So long as there are a significant group of people who believe that the “racist” label applies primarily to monsters with no moral character,* I sure as hell am not going to acknowledge being a racist in public. There’s too much risk. Sure, i may mean “don’t do enough to counteract my white privilege,” or “…in the context of critical race analysis,” but they don’t know that.

In order for people to have self evaluation, they need to have a label which they can apply internally. They need to have that label, ideally, also match the external issues, and be one which they are not embarrassed to have attached.

And on that note, what do you think of the ‘would you be comfortable being described that way’ question? Do you disagree that the vast majority of people would not be comfortable being described as racist?** If so, it would be unsurprising atht they wouldn’t apply the label internally.

*which I believe to be the case. Do you disagree?

** an interesting question: The next 100 people you meet, who don’t yet know your sex, are going to be told either ____ is a racist” or “____ is a sexist.” Which one would you expect to be least socially damaging? I’d say that “racist” is more socially damaging by far.

“Do Obama or Hillary have executive branch experience? No. Do they have lengthy Congressional careers? No. Have they been in the military? No. Have they made any substantial record of achievement in the business world?”

Those are your standards, but I fail to see how they are good standards at all. Having experience as senators or governors hardly qualifies anybody to be president. The world is full of assholes with a long political experience. What should qualify anybody to be president (assuming anybody has the right) is the quality of their proposals.

About the others, I find them pitfull. Being in the military not only should not qualify anybody to be president…it should be looked upon with suspicion (specially the war monger mentality of “military heroe” types). Having achieved anything in the buisness world, in our capitalist state sponsored system -and being close to politics at the same time- should call our suspicion too.

What do YOU picture when I tell you I spoke with a racist homophobic sexist bigot today?

An average, middle-class white person of the sort I work with, who wouldn’t dream of openly discriminating and certainly is sure that they would never THEMSELVES do anything sexist, racist or bigoted - but who has a tendency to make comments like ‘geez, why do they have to CALL it marriage?’ or ‘Obama is so well-spoken’ or ‘ well of course there aren’t a lot of girls in the science, look at my daughter, she hates math.’

The flip side of the I’m-not-a-monster argument is that if I choose to assume that anyone prejudiced does so intentionally because they are a monster, I can, quite conveniently, protect myself from ever having to consider whether or not I have any bigoted tendencies.

I think as a general statement this is true, but the resistance to the “racist label among whites” seems to be much stronger than the resistance to the homophobe or sexist labels. There seems to be something about the ideology of contemporary racism that makes the label very difficult to place.

I fairly routinely observe that people are quicker to laugh off the sexist or homophobe label. I guess the level of guilt about these labels is different. We rarely talk about heterosexual guilt or male guilt, but discussing white guilt is fairly routine.