chemvictim wrote:Dems: "in-person voter fraud doesn't exist!"

Pubs: "people without photo ID don't exist!"

Conclusion: this is stupid. I give up.

Hehehe...yes.

Edit: ooh..Sparky!

klezman wrote:To me it sounds more like the photo ID issue is a straw man for both sides. If you're working, buying alcohol, driving, traveling, etc, then you need to have a photo ID. Doesn't seem the least bit onerous to require it to vote. I'm pretty sure they do in Canada too.

Seems the problem is more about inappropriate voter registration practices. By both sides. More troubling, though, are the (seemingly) highly inaccurate voter "purges" being undertaken by some Republican administrations in swing states. If the concern over photo ID is to increase confidence in the election system then it seems to me that many are going about it the wrong way.

At the end of that commentary, she cites people who "saw rampant voter fraud". What on Earth does that mean? Too many non-wasp people voting at their polling station? Did they go and check every person's citizenship records? Did these supposed fraudsters walk out of the polling place and announce they voted illegally?

I agree with all of this. Voter suppression! Voter fraud! Neither are real issues. At least, not until we solve the other 9,759,458 issues before it.

kylemittskus wrote:I agree with all of this. Voter suppression! Voter fraud! Neither are real issues. At least, not until we solve the other 9,759,458 issues before it.

Not real issues?? Tell Norm Coleman that.

Coleman led on election night, but a series of recounts lasting eight months eventually gave the seat to the former Saturday Night Live star.

Later, a conservative watchdog group matched criminal records with the voting rolls and discovered that 1,099 felons had illegally cast ballots. State law mandates prosecutions in such cases; 177 have been convicted so far, with 66 more awaiting trial.

Franken’s eventual margin of “victory”? A mere 312 votes.

The Minnesota win gave the Democrats their 60th Senate seat, creating the filibuster-proof majority that helped shovel ObamaCare into law.

Tell me again that it doesn't matter!

I’ve looked into one of the big voter fraud claims made in this thread recently, and if I have the time I might look into some of the others. I encourage others to check the records (rather than the claims by partisans or in the media) to fill in some of the other claims.

In the Minnesota Senatorial election of 2008, Al Franken defeated Norm Coleman by 312 votes. A claim was made that 1,099 felons in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties (housing Minneapolis and St. Paul, respectively) voted illegally in the election, and a book published earlier this year restated the claim and said that 177 people were convicted and 66 were awaiting trial at the time of publication. Of note is the fact that in Minnesota (as is the case in many other states) convicted felons can vote once their sentences, including parole, are completely served.

County records show a smaller issue than claimed. The Hennepin County statement is here showing 38 people charged, but a smaller number were convicted; I didn’t find an official Ramsey County statement but the numbers are widely reported. A total of 49 cases have resulted in convictions for voter fraud by felons. Of these, 22 were convicted of registering but did not vote, leaving 27 who did vote. Whether they all voted for Franken is, of course, impossible to determine; the only person convicted who revealed his vote said he voted for Coleman. Even if they all did vote for Franken, it would not have been enough to change the result.

The group that brought the claim is Minnesota Majority, a small conservative group which submitted lists of names to both Counties. Most of the names were of people with no felony convictions, people who had served their terms and thus were eligible to vote, people who shared a name with a convicted felon, or people who could not be found in the voting records. Most of those convicted of fraud failed to file all of the proper paperwork to get their voting rights reinstated; there was no evidence of coordination in any of the cases.

A voter ID law would not have prevented any of the fraudulent votes from being cast.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Tell me again that it doesn't matter!

Because of the little known fact that ALL felons are Democrats and vote Democratic.

Meanwhile, back at the felon den:

Jimmy da Greek: Hey Lucky Three Fingers, what you tink of dis here Romney character. I tinks his morals falls in line with mine. I'm torn though cause the felon code says I gotta vote for this mook Obama. This health care ting a his is gonna make it awfully hard to shake down dem doctors.

Lucky Three Fingers: Hey Jimmy da Greek, nona this here stuff matters no how. We are completely innocent convicted felons and we cants vote no how. Why you follow dis stuff anyway.

Jimmy da Greek: Hey Lucky, don go givin me nona this it don't matter no how crap. We gotta figger out which candidate makes it easiest to run our completely legitimate business outta dis here warehouse. Plus, we lives in Minnesota dontcha know, so we can votes whenever and howevers we feel.

Lucky Three Fingers: Hey Jimmy, I had completely forgot about all of what you just said. You make a good point. I think we gotta vote for this Obama character though, cause if we get pinched again we gotta get Bubba da Muscle to protect our cornholes again. You know he's a Democrat.

Jimmy da Greek: You right Lucky, you always right. I'd rather take it in the rear from the Proverbial Healthcare Phallus than Harold the Healthnut I wanted you guys to know I'm ignorant's actual Phallus. Come on, we gotta get to dem polls.

coynedj wrote:I’ve looked into one of the big voter fraud claims made in this thread recently, and if I have the time I might look into some of the others. I encourage others to check the records (rather than the claims by partisans or in the media) to fill in some of the other claims.

In the Minnesota Senatorial election of 2008, Al Franken defeated Norm Coleman by 312 votes. A claim was made that 1,099 felons in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties (housing Minneapolis and St. Paul, respectively) voted illegally in the election, and a book published earlier this year restated the claim and said that 177 people were convicted and 66 were awaiting trial at the time of publication. Of note is the fact that in Minnesota (as is the case in many other states) convicted felons can vote once their sentences, including parole, are completely served.

County records show a smaller issue than claimed. The Hennepin County statement is here showing 38 people charged, but a smaller number were convicted; I didn’t find an official Ramsey County statement but the numbers are widely reported. A total of 49 cases have resulted in convictions for voter fraud by felons. Of these, 22 were convicted of registering but did not vote, leaving 27 who did vote. Whether they all voted for Franken is, of course, impossible to determine; the only person convicted who revealed his vote said he voted for Coleman. Even if they all did vote for Franken, it would not have been enough to change the result.

The group that brought the claim is Minnesota Majority, a small conservative group which submitted lists of names to both Counties. Most of the names were of people with no felony convictions, people who had served their terms and thus were eligible to vote, people who shared a name with a convicted felon, or people who could not be found in the voting records. Most of those convicted of fraud failed to file all of the proper paperwork to get their voting rights reinstated; there was no evidence of coordination in any of the cases.

A voter ID law would not have prevented any of the fraudulent votes from being cast.

You left out that most prosecutions for Voter Fraud are only when the prosecutor "feels" that they can prove the person knew they were violating the law.

Anyone claiming they didn't "know" they couldn't vote is excluded from prosecution and from your stats. Thus, why all "actual" VF stats are so low.



Actually, Forbes has an interesting alternative to using an ID.

You give your thumbprint when you vote, and have a blue thumb for the rest of the day.

Plus, you might get some freebies by showing your "blue thumb", if some of the chains (Starbucks, etc.) would step up.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Actually, Forbes has an interesting alternative to using an ID.

You give your thumbprint when you vote, and have a blue thumb for the rest of the day.

Plus, you might get some freebies by showing your "blue thumb", if some of the chains (Starbucks, etc.) would step up.

Thumbprint is a great idea. But it doesn't need to be ink. Use a livescan machine and match instantly. Call it a day and move on.

I still think this is a non-issue, though.

kylemittskus wrote:Thumbprint is a great idea. But it doesn't need to be ink. Use a livescan machine and match instantly. Call it a day and move on.

I still think this is a non-issue, though.

Not everyone would want the big bad gov't to have a copy of their thumbprint. I'm not sure if that sort of matching is what you're talking about.

chemvictim wrote:Not everyone would want the big bad gov't to have a copy of their thumbprint. I'm not sure if that sort of matching is what you're talking about.

You have a drivers license? They have your thumb print, at least they do here in CA.
I'd be good with a blue/purple finger, but that unfortunately, still doesn't address the issues with mail voting.

rjquillin wrote:You have a drivers license? They have your thumb print, at least they do here in CA.
I'd be good with a blue/purple finger, but that unfortunately, still doesn't address the issues with mail voting.

I don't recall giving a print for my license in AR, IN, VA, or NV. I might have, and just didn't remember. The gov't has my fingerprints (and much more) anyway.

A bit of a diversion that I found interesting.

A strong democracy depends on smart voters who choose their leaders based on their knowledge of important political issues. One of the ways that Americans learn about politics is by following the news. Now, researchers from the University of Missouri School of Journalism have found that simply following the news is not enough.

I seem to recall one of our founders also speaking of an informed electorate. Jefferson.
Now, if only we had the news machine doing a proper job of it..

chemvictim wrote:The gov't has my fingerprints (and much more) anyway.

QFT

rjquillin wrote:A bit of a diversion that I found interesting.

A strong democracy depends on smart voters who choose their leaders based on their knowledge of important political issues. One of the ways that Americans learn about politics is by following the news. Now, researchers from the University of Missouri School of Journalism have found that simply following the news is not enough.

I seem to recall one of our founders also speaking of an informed electorate. Jefferson.
Now, if only we had the news machine doing a proper job of it..

But, there are too many stories about amazing cats and dogs to report on.

bhodilee wrote:But, there are too many stories about amazing cats and dogs to report on.

And NFL "refs"

rjquillin wrote:And NFL "refs"

Let's not forget Dancing With the Stars!

coynedj wrote:Let's not forget Dancing With the Stars!

Seriously though, and it's semi-political, did Bristol get kicked off first? I'm just curious enough to want to know, but not curious enough to actually seek out the answer.

Did Romney really try to get a crowd to chant his name and fail? That's kinda funny.

EDIT: Why Yes, yes he did

Poor Ryan, he's gotta be kicking himself for not running. He ABSOLUTELY would have won this Election. Instead, ouch...

bhodilee wrote:Seriously though, and it's semi-political, did Bristol get kicked off first? I'm just curious enough to want to know, but not curious enough to actually seek out the answer.

I have no clue, and even if I did I wouldn't admit it.

offered without comment. A completely un-fiscal policy critique of president Obama.

joelsisk wrote:offered without comment. A completely un-fiscal policy critique of president Obama.

I guess, and this is known, that I'm a terrible person. I don't find the killing of American's in open rebellion, on foreign soil, against the United States in the least bit despicable. We've already done that a couple hundred thousand times over in the Civil War. If the person is on US soil, then I would have more of an issue with killing them without trying to apprehend them first.

If they really did kill that kid (16 really isn't a kid in my book) in cold blood, that is wrong, and there should be repercussions. There may be intel that we don't have access to about that kid though. We'll find out in 20 years.

The drone thing, also doesn't bother me. I'd much rather lose a few drones than a few Americans. The "innocent" people being affected could always just turn over the terrorists they're protecting. Do that, drones go away.

The Libya thing, never saw that as a war. That was a UN mission (though I find it suspicious we're not doing the same thing in Syria) that we took part in. I would have been fine with Bush taking action in Libya and I'll be fine with Romney taking action in Syria if he's elected and chooses to do so.

If the President has a hit list that he personally signs off on, I'm cool with that also. The decision to kill someone shouldn't be an easy task and there should be someone with whom "the buck stops."

I guess I have poor morals, or I'm ruthless. Whichever.

joelsisk wrote:offered without comment. A completely un-fiscal policy critique of president Obama.

Obama is a bad, bad man because drone strikes scare Pakistani's and they don't sleep well. I tried to care, but I failed. As for the killing of Americans...well, war sucks. People die, that's the point. I'd prefer we were not at war, but since we are I'm not going to insist we carry it out in a kind, gentle manner. I also thought it was stupid how the media got all excited about soldiers disrespecting enemy corpses. It was A-OK to SHOOT them, but be a gentleman about it? Ridiculous.

chemvictim wrote:Obama is a bad, bad man because drone strikes scare Pakistani's and they don't sleep well. I tried to care, but I failed. As for the killing of Americans...well, war sucks. People die, that's the point. I'd prefer we were not at war, but since we are I'm not going to insist we carry it out in a kind, gentle manner. I also thought it was stupid how the media got all excited about soldiers disrespecting enemy corpses. It was A-OK to SHOOT them, but be a gentleman about it? Ridiculous.

Speaking as a former soldier and Army civilian (Though I served during war time, I was never in actual combat) I always found the Geneva Conventions rather humorous. Along with what Chemvictim said, you can kill people however only in certain ways. It is okay to use napalm but not fragmenting bullets. Nuclear weapons are OK but not poison gas. To me dead is dead and war is ugly. Call me concrete but it should be all or nothing. If I am in a bar fight, I ain't playin' by no stinkin' rules. It's him or me. Knee to the nuts, gouge his eyes out, anything goes. War should either be entirely legal or not. I don't agree with torture however, mainly because it has been largely proven to be unreliable and ineffective to get much valuable information.

I do believe war should be the last resort, the problem with high tech war is it takes a lot of the pain out and therefore makes it much easier to go to war. The total U.S. deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan are less than one year's dead during the Viet Nam war which had the lowest casualty rate of any American war to that time. There were 30,000 casualties in one day at Antietam during the Civil War. People are far less eager for war when their sons and daughters don't come home from it. It is also easier to let a professional, all volunteer Army (and increasingly, mercenaries, which is what a lot of the defense contractors in the current wars are) fight and die than to have a draft and all of the unpleasantness that goes with that ( I am sure RPM and a few of us others here remember those days!).

That and financing a war on borrowed money thereby requiring no fiscal pain on the home front such as increased taxes, etc.

To return to a topic we talked about quite a while ago, the USPS is hemorrhaging money in the billions. They want to cut Saturday delivery (which I'm fine with), but that's only going to solve a small portion of the debt they're accruing daily.

Solutions?

This seems to be another example of a gov't run program that absolutely sucks! Roads anyone?

kylemittskus wrote:To return to a topic we talked about quite a while ago, the USPS is hemorrhaging money in the billions. They want to cut Saturday delivery (which I'm fine with), but that's only going to solve a small portion of the debt they're accruing daily.

Solutions?

This seems to be another example of a gov't run program that absolutely sucks! Roads anyone?

I don't have any solutions, but I daresay (and there are a number of others that agree) that they're barely delivering as it is now.

edlada wrote:Speaking as a former soldier and Army civilian (Though I served during war time, I was never in actual combat) I always found the Geneva Conventions rather humorous. Along with what Chemvictim said, you can kill people however only in certain ways. It is okay to use napalm but not fragmenting bullets. Nuclear weapons are OK but not poison gas. To me dead is dead and war is ugly. Call me concrete but it should be all or nothing. If I am in a bar fight, I ain't playin' by no stinkin' rules. It's him or me. Knee to the nuts, gouge his eyes out, anything goes. War should either be entirely legal or not. I don't agree with torture however, mainly because it has been largely proven to be unreliable and ineffective to get much valuable information.

I do believe war should be the last resort, the problem with high tech war is it takes a lot of the pain out and therefore makes it much easier to go to war. The total U.S. deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan are less than one year's dead during the Viet Nam war which had the lowest casualty rate of any American war to that time. There were 30,000 casualties in one day at Antietam during the Civil War. People are far less eager for war when their sons and daughters don't come home from it. It is also easier to let a professional, all volunteer Army (and increasingly, mercenaries, which is what a lot of the defense contractors in the current wars are) fight and die than to have a draft and all of the unpleasantness that goes with that ( I am sure RPM and a few of us others here remember those days!).

That and financing a war on borrowed money thereby requiring no fiscal pain on the home front such as increased taxes, etc.

Well, the Conventions were negotiated at the end of the 19th century (which really lasted until 1914 in many respects) by people who had grown up with a different kind of warfare and who still had what many would consider quaint notions of honor among warriors. They didn't really think through the implications of the mass destructiveness of modern weapons because they really didn't understand them and, truth to tell, most of them weren't really developed when the Conventions were negotiated.

And, of course, gas was used despite the Conventions in WWI and only prohibited by the victors (who had cheerfully joined in its use) after the war.

The bald fact is that nations in extremis will use any weapon at hand unless they're more afraid of what others will do to them if they use a weapon. Hence, the Germans didn't use gas in WWII (except on Jews who had no standing in an Ehrengericht).

We used the atom bomb because we could and knew no one else had it.

War is Hell, and those who try to keep it antiseptic are either fools or dishonest.

Still, sometimes it's the only option. I'd say that's probably true for the Israelis about now - they really can't let Iran get the bomb and they can't trust the US to stop the Iranians from getting the bomb.

Everyone thinks the Israelis will try to take out the Iranian capacity with conventional weapons. Probably so, but I'm not so sure. If I were an Israeli, and I really thought Iran was an existential threat, I would think very long and very hard about using those nukes Israel doesn't admit to having to ensuring that the Iranian leadership cannot threaten Israel for a generation and the Iranian nuclear facilities could not be approached for hundreds of years.

I don't know if I posted the thought here, but I have long been of the opinion that unless something effective could be done to blunt the thrust of radical Islam, whether Sunni or Shiite, there will be some sort of a nuclear war involving the Middle East and perhaps much more.

The questions now don't seem to me whether there will be a nuclear war in the Middle East, but when and how many millions will be killed.

rpm wrote:Still, sometimes it's the only option. I'd say that's probably true for the Israelis about now - they really can't let Iran get the bomb and they can't trust the US to stop the Iranians from getting the bomb.

Everyone thinks the Israelis will try to take out the Iranian capacity with conventional weapons. Probably so, but I'm not so sure. If I were an Israeli, and I really thought Iran was an existential threat, I would think very long and very hard about using those nukes Israel doesn't admit to having to ensuring that the Iranian leadership cannot threaten Israel for a generation and the Iranian nuclear facilities could not be approached for hundreds of years.

I don't know if I posted the thought here, but I have long been of the opinion that unless something effective could be done to blunt the thrust of radical Islam, whether Sunni or Shiite, there will be some sort of a nuclear war involving the Middle East and perhaps much more.

The questions now don't seem to me whether there will be a nuclear war in the Middle East, but when and how many millions will be killed.

While I am completely on the side of Israel, both because of heritage and because of logic, I have to comment upon the twisted irony created by the situation. Israel is afraid that Iran is working on and will use a nuclear weapon against them. And I believe that their fear is warranted and accurate. However, it seems so sickeningly ironic that to resolve the situation -- fear of a nuclear weapon -- they're going to, possibly at least, use a nuclear weapon.

There has to be some other way to handle this type of situation, but I fear that there isn't. And I completely agree that with the existence of extremists -- in current times it's the Islamic religion that has produced the most radical -- that the only measure to take against extremism is forceful. Thus, ah, sweet irony, creating justification (in their minds) for their extremist behavior.

Man really is a sad creature.

kylemittskus wrote:While I am completely on the side of Israel, both because of heritage and because of logic, I have to comment upon the twisted irony created by the situation. Israel is afraid that Iran is working on and will use a nuclear weapon against them. And I believe that their fear is warranted and accurate. However, it seems so sickeningly ironic that to resolve the situation -- fear of a nuclear weapon -- they're going to, possibly at least, use a nuclear weapon.

There has to be some other way to handle this type of situation, but I fear that there isn't. And I completely agree that with the existence of extremists -- in current times it's the Islamic religion that has produced the most radical -- that the only measure to take against extremism is forceful. Thus, ah, sweet irony, creating justification (in their minds) for their extremist behavior.

Man really is a sad creature.

Sigh.

The only way this could have been dealt with conventionally (over the long haul) would have been to (1) have supported the Iranian democracy movement while we were in Iraq strongly and thereafter (no chance with Obama in 2009, though), and to have given Iran a very clear US redline beyond which their military capabilities and their nuclear facilities would be destroyed.

It is only when dictators do not fear consequences that they become bold, and miscalculate.

Eight or nine years ago, we were "at 1936" in relation to Iranian nuclear ambitions. Now after almost a decade of Bush II caution because of a lack of domestic support and European pressure, and Obama fecklessness, we are somewhere around the Anschluss and the Czech crisis, with the risk of it turning into war growing exponentially as Syria disintegrates, Iraq weakens as an ally, the Saudis and the Gulf States cower, and Egypt and most of North Africa turns Islamist.

Yesterday, my wife (white, conservative, 61) got a call from a polling organization sounded like Obama's private one, any way, she answered Romney, and to profile as , black, female and 25. They hung up on her in the middle of a sentence.

WineWootaholic wrote:Yesterday, my wife (white, conservative, 61) got a call from a polling organization sounded like Obama's private one, any way, she answered Romney, and to profile as , black, female and 25. They hung up on her in the middle of a sentence.

LOL!

Since someone got mad when a simple joke was posted in the Jokes thread ...


In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: Barocky Road.

Brocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all plentiful. The cost is $92.84 per scoop...so out of a hundred dollar bill you are at least promised some CHANGE..! When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but after you pay for it, the ice cream is taken out of the cone and given to the person in line behind you at no charge. You are left with an almost empty wallet, staring at an empty cone and wondering what just happened. Then you realize this is what "redistribution of wealth" is all about.

Aren't you just stimulated?



Just a joke, people. Nothing to see, just move along.



Edit: And now we can get appropriate shirts!! Whether you are a Wing Nut Conservative, a Bleeding Heart Liberal, or a Bull Moose Independent, Shirt.Woot! has the shirt for us!

Just remember to vote Yes on No!!

MarkDaSpark wrote:Since someone got mad when a simple joke was posted in the Jokes thread ...


In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: Barocky Road.

Brocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes. The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all plentiful. The cost is $92.84 per scoop...so out of a hundred dollar bill you are at least promised some CHANGE..! When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but after you pay for it, the ice cream is taken out of the cone and given to the person in line behind you at no charge. You are left with an almost empty wallet, staring at an empty cone and wondering what just happened. Then you realize this is what "redistribution of wealth" is all about.

Aren't you just stimulated?



Just a joke, people. Nothing to see, just move along.



Edit: And now we can get appropriate shirts!! Whether you are a Wing Nut Conservative, a Bleeding Heart Liberal, or a Bull Moose Independent, Shirt.Woot! has the shirt for us!

Just remember to vote Yes on No!!

I think this is the right place for this joke, since it's more political commentary than anything humorous.

For what it's worth (and since you brought it up), I'll explain the reason why I didn't like that "other" joke. It wasn't because "liberals are stupid, hahaha." It was because "liberals are women or girlie-men, which are the same as women, and that's the dumbest thing you could ever be."

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. They became known as girlie-men. Some note worthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that
conservatives provided and became the ultimate “gimme faction”.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men.

From my perspective, the "joke" wasn't funny at all unless you first accept the premise that women and girlie-men are stupid and useless. I would not be at all surprised if you disagree or think I'm being over-sensitive, but there it is. My being annoyed by the joke, and your being annoyed that I was annoyed by a joke, are roughly equal in significance or lack thereof.

chemvictim wrote:From my perspective, the "joke" wasn't funny at all unless you first accept the premise that women and girlie-men are stupid and useless. I would not be at all surprised if you disagree or think I'm being over-sensitive, but there it is. My being annoyed by the joke, and your being annoyed that I was annoyed by a joke, are roughly equal in significance or lack thereof.

Hmmm. I suspect you're being at least a bit oversensitive. I think the way to understand this sort of thing is not to confuse it with an attack on women or any implication that women are stupid. There is, however, something unseemly in the eyes of many - perhaps mostly men, but a fair percentage of women as well - in a man who is perceived as effeminate or emasculated. That's the reason the charge has such emotional force: if it were palpably absurd, no one would be bothered by it or take it seriously. But, it connects at an emotional, perhaps even biological, level.

rpm wrote:Hmmm. I suspect you're being at least a bit oversensitive. I think the way to understand this sort of thing is not to confuse it with an attack on women or any implication that women are stupid. There is, however, something unseemly in the eyes of many - perhaps mostly men, but a fair percentage of women as well - in a man who is perceived as effeminate or emasculated. That's the reason the charge has such emotional force: if it were palpably absurd, no one would be bothered by it or take it seriously. But, it connects at an emotional, perhaps even biological, level.

Edit: FYI, this is only a sort of explanation why I'm a pain in the collective poli"ticks" ass, and not an indication that I'm trying to *do* anything, or convince you of anything, or even think that you need any convincing. /end FYI

Well, it is only a joke, and most of us will be more sensitive to issues that directly affect us than to issues which are purely academic. It depends on what your experiences have been. This is getting off the subject of the joke, but just to explain a little where the sensitivity is coming from. You're right, the worst insult you can make to a man is to imply femininity. There is nothing more disgusting than to be feminine. To call a man feminine, or a girlie-man, is to say he's degraded himself. In other words, a feminine man is disgusting and degraded. Combine that with the biblical view of women which I was brought up with, and you can probably imagine why I would dislike this characterization.

chemvictim wrote:Edit: FYI, this is only a sort of explanation why I'm a pain in the collective poli"ticks" ass, and not an indication that I'm trying to *do* anything, or convince you of anything, or even think that you need any convincing. /end FYI

Well, it is only a joke, and most of us will be more sensitive to issues that directly affect us than to issues which are purely academic. It depends on what your experiences have been. This is getting off the subject of the joke, but just to explain a little where the sensitivity is coming from. You're right, the worst insult you can make to a man is to imply femininity. There is nothing more disgusting than to be feminine. To call a man feminine, or a girlie-man, is to say he's degraded himself. In other words, a feminine man is disgusting and degraded. Combine that with the biblical view of women which I was brought up with, and you can probably imagine why I would dislike this characterization.

You are almost willfully missing my point. It's not that being feminine is bad per se - it's not, and it's entirely appropriate for a woman. This is all about context. What creates the negative connotation is the deep sense many people have of the inappropriateness of a man behaving in womanly manner, or vice versa.

Now, I'd be the first to agree that all humans contain a mixture of 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits and no man or no woman is purely one or the other. And, a very wide variety of 'mixtures' of those traits are within the range of what most people would consider normal.

In a broader sense, however, there are spheres of life in which many people have a intuitive sense - rightly or wrongly - of which traits are virtues in any given context. The force of the 'girly-men' comment is primarily a sense that they are behaving inappropriately in situations, displaying 'feminine' behaviors (often primarily risk aversion and timidity) where 'masculine' behaviors are called for.

I would note there are contexts in which many people like to see men displaying 'feminine' virtues, e.g. compassion at another's loss, and in which many like to see 'masculine' virtues in women, e.g. displays of tenacity and strength in the face of adversity.

Judith Butler would strongly question both of your (RPM and chem) definitions of masculine and feminine.

rpm wrote:You are almost willfully missing my point. It's not that being feminine is bad per se - it's not, and it's entirely appropriate for a woman. This is all about context.

No, we're just looking at it from different perspectives. I think there's far more to it than context and appropriate/inappropriate. We're not going to agree on this, and that's fine.

kylemittskus wrote:Judith Butler would strongly question both of your (RPM and chem) definitions of masculine and feminine.

It is inconceivable to me that anyone with the slightest understanding of philosophy would ever take Judith Butler seriously. Hannah Arendt, much of whose work I have read, is turning in her grave to think her name is associated with Das Butler.

rpm wrote:I would note there are contexts in which many people like to see men displaying 'feminine' virtues, e.g. compassion at another's loss, and in which many like to see 'masculine' virtues in women, e.g. displays of tenacity and strength in the face of adversity.

I was thinking about this. I think compassion, tenacity and strength are appropriate for everyone.

chemvictim wrote:I was thinking about this. I think compassion, tenacity and strength are appropriate for everyone.

That doesn't change the fact that they are variously considered (historically, at least) 'feminine' or 'masculine'. As I tried to point out above, people are a mixture of traits considered 'masculine' and 'feminine'. This stuff is hardly so cut and dried as you seem to want to make it.

rpm wrote:That doesn't change the fact that they are variously considered (historically, at least) 'feminine' or 'masculine'. As I tried to point out above, people are a mixture of traits considered 'masculine' and 'feminine'. This stuff is hardly so cut and dried as you seem to want to make it.

Yes, but you mentioned that these particular traits would be considered appropriate for the 'opposite' gender at given times, implying that they would be inappropriate at other times. I was trying to figure out when it would be inappropriate for a woman to show strength, or for a man to show compassion, and why we would consider it inappropriate.