|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
Anyone (Male or female) is forced into particular ways of presenting themselves in politics. Not only is it self-selective for people with certain traits that will garner success, but further success requires more highlighting of said traits.
That said, women suffer more scrutiny for this than men. Elder female politicians like Warren were forced to cultivate a very particular personality and speech style due to the sexism they faced in their careers. Strong but not too strong, loud but not too loud, etc etc.
This is why AOC seems different from Warren and Klobuchar. She is young enough to not have to face the same sexism the other two did through their careers, and older women with that strong, imposing presence are few and far between due to the extreme sexism they faced, forcing them to change or not succeed in life.
That said, Klobuchar is a Karen and has horrible presence. I've met her personally and, while she was pleasant, she 100% has a Karen vibe.
|
On March 07 2020 06:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Anyone (Male or female) is forced into particular ways of presenting themselves in politics. Not only is it self-selective for people with certain traits that will garner success, but further success requires more highlighting of said traits.
That said, women suffer more scrutiny for this than men. Elder female politicians like Warren were forced to cultivate a very particular personality and speech style due to the sexism they faced in their careers. Strong but not too strong, loud but not too loud, etc etc.
This is why AOC seems different from Warren and Klobuchar. She is young enough to not have to face the same sexism the other two did through their careers, and older women with that strong, imposing presence are few and far between due to the extreme sexism they faced, forcing them to change or not succeed in life.
That said, Klobuchar is a Karen and has horrible presence. I've met her personally and, while she was pleasant, she 100% has a Karen vibe.
This is my assumption as well. Women like AOC were forced out of careers and fired early on and were never able to sneak past sexism. As culture evolved, now those women are allowed to progress, or at least more than before. But when it comes to electing a leader, people want that kind of person who was forced away by insecure men that were intimidated by AOC types in the 80s and 90s.
I agree with your assessment that women had to behave a certain way to make it to even makes it this far.
|
On March 07 2020 06:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:
That said, Klobuchar is a Karen and has horrible presence. I've met her personally and, while she was pleasant, she 100% has a Karen vibe.
People talk a lot about the dem field being too white & male, but there's not enough attention to the absolute onslaught of Karens we had this time around (Pete, Klob, Harris, etc.). It's a real problem.
|
On March 07 2020 07:34 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 06:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:
That said, Klobuchar is a Karen and has horrible presence. I've met her personally and, while she was pleasant, she 100% has a Karen vibe. People talk a lot about the dem field being too white & male, but there's not enough attention to the absolute onslaught of Karens we had this time around (Pete, Klob, Harris, etc.). It's a real problem.
Pete was perhaps the most unlikable candidate I have ever seen. And no, it is not because he is unattractive to me.
|
Northern Ireland27340 Posts
I know I could google it but the fuck is a Karen?
|
On March 07 2020 00:51 Mohdoo wrote:
This feels like a bit of a strange thing to ask, but it has been on my mind lately and I'm curious if anyone has thought about this.
In my eyes, women, such as Warren, have a really hard time in politics being treated as equal to men. But I would also argue that it isn't purely because they are women. Rather, it is because of the general demeanor, personality, ways of talking and other things that are very common to women.
But there are some women who I would simply say "don't speak femininely". AOC is a great example of someone who I think would be taken significantly more seriously than Warren and 99% of women. There is an entirely different method of speaking/gesturing etc that I don't want to describe as "masculine", but I do want to acknowledge as being "stronger", more forceful, without feeling frantic.
I don't have too much to add to what's already been said in terms of gender roles - Stratos covered my own thoughts quite well on the first page - but I do want to talk about Warren in particular.
You give her as an example of a candidate that failed because of the expectations of women. I don't think that's true; her candidacy did quite well for quite a long time, and fundamentally it's because she does have a lot of the traits people look for in a president. It's also true that she has weaknesses, though, like a pretty bad record on authenticity when compared with Bernie, the candidate closest to her on the issues. That didn't help, nor did the fact that a candidate whose selling point is "a progressive for people who don't really want a progressive" isn't all that appealing, especially in this particular election (where the two camps are "cookie cutter candidate that will hold up well against Trump" and "idealist that will make real progressive progress"). She certainly did blame sexism a lot in this campaign, but that's just blamestorming as the poll numbers faded. If she were a better (read: more genuine) candidate, she would have done well. Sure, there would be some fallout from sexism, but also some windfall too, since there's a meaningful number of voters who will vote explicitly for a woman or who will more generally think that she's better suited to address women's issues.
I think the most direct comparison is Obama. Though it obviously came up, sometimes in his favor and sometimes against him, I certainly never felt that he was running a campaign to be the "first black president." Merely, to be president.
|
|
|
On March 07 2020 08:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 08:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
I know I could google it but the fuck is a Karen? Lol i had the same question a while ago and friend wgos name is karen and was not so happy about it said, it the angry annoying mom who complains about anything and everything. Often being rude to poor customer service agents because the coffee is too hot, line is too long or music is too loud.
Yeah, it's a placeholder name for (usually white) people that have to pretend to be nice because they're not a nice person normally, and when anything goes wrong the facade slips away and they turn nasty fast. The ones who think they win because of who they are, not what they are. The kind of people who are raised with an oversized ego and taught that the quality of someone's character directly correlates to their wages, but doesn't say those things until they're mad. Generally, think of customer service nightmares.
I would totally agree on the klobster being one, especially when you think about the "terrible boss" stories that were floating around; however, I think Pete is a different style of bad. To me, it always felt like he was just ignorant and inauthentic, not venomous or repugnant. When Klobuchar brought up how she was the winner in Republican districts all the fucking time and somehow linked it to her being a woman instead of being a centrist, I could feel the Karen energy through my earbuds.
|
Northern Ireland27340 Posts
On March 07 2020 09:17 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 08:46 JimmiC wrote:On March 07 2020 08:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
I know I could google it but the fuck is a Karen? Lol i had the same question a while ago and friend wgos name is karen and was not so happy about it said, it the angry annoying mom who complains about anything and everything. Often being rude to poor customer service agents because the coffee is too hot, line is too long or music is too loud. Yeah, it's a placeholder name for (usually white) people that have to pretend to be nice because they're not a nice person normally, and when anything goes wrong the facade slips away and they turn nasty fast. The ones who think they win because of who they are, not what they are. The kind of people who are raised with an oversized ego and taught that the quality of someone's character directly correlates to their wages, but doesn't say those things until they're mad. Generally, think of customer service nightmares. I would totally agree on the klobster being one, especially when you think about the "terrible boss" stories that were floating around; however, I think Pete is a different style of bad. To me, it always felt like he was just ignorant and inauthentic, not venomous or repugnant. When Klobuchar brought up how she was the winner in Republican districts all the fucking time and somehow linked it to her being a woman instead of being a centrist, I could feel the Karen energy through my earbuds.
Working in retail I’m breaking out in a cold sweat as you reveal what a ‘Karen’ is
|
On March 07 2020 00:51 Mohdoo wrote:
This feels like a bit of a strange thing to ask, but it has been on my mind lately and I'm curious if anyone has thought about this.
In my eyes, women, such as Warren, have a really hard time in politics being treated as equal to men. But I would also argue that it isn't purely because they are women. Rather, it is because of the general demeanor, personality, ways of talking and other things that are very common to women.
But there are some women who I would simply say "don't speak femininely". AOC is a great example of someone who I think would be taken significantly more seriously than Warren and 99% of women. There is an entirely different method of speaking/gesturing etc that I don't want to describe as "masculine", but I do want to acknowledge as being "stronger", more forceful, without feeling frantic.
Many times when women try to come across as strong in politics, it is instead frantic. I think Tulsi Gabbard is the same way. And I think Gillibrand was also?
Am I crazy here? I truly feel like there are essentially 2 different paths a woman's brain can take and 1 of them is actually very imposing. Maybe that's the right word? AOC and Gabbard are imposing? Look at how Warren and Klobuchar talk. Compare it to AOC. Its like an entirely different method. I truly think AOC would only suffer like -10% from not being male rather than would I would generally consider -30% (this is all hand waving numbers, of course) is what most women suffer from.
I've read something about this a while back on what was framed as masculine and feminine speech, though it's labeling was inconsequential as nothing stops somebody from using bot. It was all about whether or not you're being direct/assertive, or couching statements. Things like "Nobody is sick." vs "Nobody is sick, as far as we know." One is sure of itself and the other opens itself to being wrong.
If we take the example of Warren, most of the time I agree, but when she was giving Bloomy a stop and frisk it was a clear departure from her usual style.
|
I see no reason why that style of speech would be associated with femininity. That is basically how all scientific studies are worded. Coached in lots and lots of disclaimers and relativising phrases to make sure that you don't claim something that is not supported by your data.
|
On March 07 2020 09:30 Simberto wrote:
I see no reason why that style of speech would be associated with femininity. That is basically how all scientific studies are worded. Coached in lots and lots of disclaimers and relativising phrases to make sure that you don't claim something that is not supported by your data.
Actually there have been a couple of studies on how men vs. women use language/grammar in science and scientific papers. They show that men are quite a bit more assertive and make bolder claims, and posit that this may be one reason that men tend to be more successful in science fields.
Working in retail I’m breaking out in a cold sweat as you reveal what a ‘Karen’ is
Specifically, a "Karen" is a meme of a middle-aged white woman with that extremely "middle aged white mom" look/haircut/attitude that makes judgmental comments on social media and is the first to complain in a retail or service setting.
So yes, you know Karens well. Klobuchar is most definitely a Karen.
|
Norway28892 Posts
On March 07 2020 09:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 09:30 Simberto wrote:
I see no reason why that style of speech would be associated with femininity. That is basically how all scientific studies are worded. Coached in lots and lots of disclaimers and relativising phrases to make sure that you don't claim something that is not supported by your data. Actually there have been a couple of studies on how men vs. women use language/grammar in science and scientific papers. They show that men are quite a bit more assertive and make bolder claims, and posit that this may be one reason that men tend to be more successful in science fields.
That should be a reason for women being more successful..?
|
On March 07 2020 09:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 09:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 07 2020 09:30 Simberto wrote:
I see no reason why that style of speech would be associated with femininity. That is basically how all scientific studies are worded. Coached in lots and lots of disclaimers and relativising phrases to make sure that you don't claim something that is not supported by your data. Actually there have been a couple of studies on how men vs. women use language/grammar in science and scientific papers. They show that men are quite a bit more assertive and make bolder claims, and posit that this may be one reason that men tend to be more successful in science fields. That should be a reason for women being more successful..?
I believe that the thinking was that the bolder/more assertive claims result in people getting more excited about the science/papers, therefore paying more attention to them or praising the (male) scientist more.
|
Northern Ireland27340 Posts
On March 07 2020 09:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 09:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 07 2020 09:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 07 2020 09:30 Simberto wrote:
I see no reason why that style of speech would be associated with femininity. That is basically how all scientific studies are worded. Coached in lots and lots of disclaimers and relativising phrases to make sure that you don't claim something that is not supported by your data. Actually there have been a couple of studies on how men vs. women use language/grammar in science and scientific papers. They show that men are quite a bit more assertive and make bolder claims, and posit that this may be one reason that men tend to be more successful in science fields. That should be a reason for women being more successful..? I believe that the thinking was that the bolder/more assertive claims result in people getting more excited about the science/papers, therefore paying more attention to them or praising the (male) scientist more.
Makes sense to me that hypothesis anyway.
Likewise politics, people listen to the bold assertive stuff rather than the grounded practical stuff, then complain that the bullshitter was well, bullshitting.
|
The incentive seems wrong for both politics and science though. Regardless, it's a problem to frame these attitudes as masculine and feminine, because a) it's not an accurate portrayal of reality and b) it probably encourages some portion of men into not doing feminine shit like having doubts and stuff.
|
On March 07 2020 09:30 Simberto wrote:
I see no reason why that style of speech would be associated with femininity. That is basically how all scientific studies are worded. Coached in lots and lots of disclaimers and relativising phrases to make sure that you don't claim something that is not supported by your data.
It's a matter of shit labeling.
|
|
|
On March 07 2020 10:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 09:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 07 2020 09:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 07 2020 09:30 Simberto wrote:
I see no reason why that style of speech would be associated with femininity. That is basically how all scientific studies are worded. Coached in lots and lots of disclaimers and relativising phrases to make sure that you don't claim something that is not supported by your data. Actually there have been a couple of studies on how men vs. women use language/grammar in science and scientific papers. They show that men are quite a bit more assertive and make bolder claims, and posit that this may be one reason that men tend to be more successful in science fields. That should be a reason for women being more successful..? You would think so, but even with men I see the more confident (and less careful with statememts of fact) have success. Quite often if something is said with confidence and stated as a fact others treat it as such. While I agree it shouldnt it, based on my expériences makes a lot of sense.
I'm also fairly confident that there is a lot of evidence that supports your experience (though I don't have the links at the moment).
|
After changing the rules once to get Bloomberg on the stage, they have changed the rules again to keep Gabbard out. It’s not a good look to change things again midstream to the detriment to the last woman and the last person of color in the race. They started with lax rules, tightened them to force some off the stage, relaxed them to get Bloomberg on, and tightened them again to keep Gabbard off.
Previously, the fact that she had won delegates was enough for this stage in the debates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
