I had to laugh at myself a little. I argue with attorneys all day at work with the resulting headache, and then continue to do the same during my off hours, thus displaying the irrational behavior that my gender is known for.

Just a joke.

chemvictim wrote: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.

I think frontier women would disagree with RPM about tenacity & strength. I think it took a lot of both for frontier women.

And let's face it, I doubt anyone would want to face women on a shopping frenzy.


As to inappropriate for men, I would imagine compassion for someone who just tortured & murdered your family would be out of place.

chemvictim wrote:I had to laugh at myself a little. I argue with attorneys all day at work with the resulting headache, and then continue to do the same during my off hours, thus displaying the irrational behavior that my gender is known for.

Just a joke.

Very tenacious!

MarkDaSpark wrote:
As to inappropriate for men, I would imagine compassion for someone who just tortured & murdered your family would be out of place.

Hell yes! But it would be inappropriate for women too...so I'm still uncertain about this stuff.

I'll just stick with poking fun at my dear husband for buying a pink car. That counts, right?

MarkDaSpark wrote:I think frontier women would disagree with RPM about tenacity & strength. I think it took a lot of both for frontier women.

I would imagine it did. This just reminded me, for all that I might disagree with my mother and grandmothers about certain things...they are much tougher than I am! You either do what you must, or you don't. I hope to always have the strength to do what I must.

chemvictim wrote:Hell yes! But it would be inappropriate for women too...so I'm still uncertain about this stuff.

I'll just stick with poking fun at my dear husband for buying a pink car. That counts, right?

That or buying a bright orange car!

MarkDaSpark wrote:I think frontier women would disagree with RPM about tenacity & strength. I think it took a lot of both for frontier women.

And let's face it, I doubt anyone would want to face women on a shopping frenzy.


As to inappropriate for men, I would imagine compassion for someone who just tortured & murdered your family would be out of place.

Actually, I knew a frontier woman - my late grandmother who pioneered in rural Eastern Oregon in the late 19th century (after growing up in the South during Reconstruction), one who actually stopped a war between the sheepmen and cattlemen around 1890 by stepping between the two groups faced off with a pair of pistols and telling them to go home and that she'd shoot the first man who made a false move. The tension slaked and everyone went away when someone yelled "Mamie'll do it" or words to that effect. Demonstrating strength and tenacity, you would likely agree.

Yet, she would have been the first to describe her behavior, though necessary, as unladylike and to have seen her behavior as masculine. She even described the local sheriff as an old woman for not intervening himself.

rpm wrote:Actually, I knew a frontier woman - my late grandmother who pioneered in rural Eastern Oregon in the late 19th century (after growing up in the South during Reconstruction), one who actually stopped a war between the sheepmen and cattlemen around 1890 by stepping between the two groups faced off with a pair of pistols and telling them to go home and that she'd shoot the first man who made a false move. The tension slaked and everyone went away when someone yelled "Mamie'll do it" or words to that effect. Demonstrating strength and tenacity, you would likely agree.

Yet, she would have been the first to describe her behavior, though necessary, as unladylike and to have seen her behavior as masculine. She even described the local sheriff as an old woman for not intervening himself.

WRITE.THE.BOOK!

bhodilee wrote:WRITE.THE.BOOK!

I'd read that.

Welp, Mittsy's got this one in the bag. Still won't win, but he's winning this.

bhodilee wrote:Welp, Mittsy's got this one in the bag. Still won't win, but he's winning this.

I thought so too, but I didn't watch the last half hour or so, got distracted with cooking dinner. I thought Obama was surprisingly, well...marooned. To be politically incorrect about it.

chemvictim wrote:I thought so too, but I didn't watch the last half hour or so, got distracted with cooking dinner. I thought Obama was surprisingly, well...marooned. To be politically incorrect about it.

He seemed bored or preoccupied. Watch him invade Iran tomorrow.

I don't think the debate will change anything. No gaffes, no killer lines that will be remembered. Both said what their supporters wanted them to say.

I tend to watch style as much as listen to what's said. Obama spent a lot of time looking down when he wasn't speaking - I assume he was taking notes, but it did him no favors. Romney towards the end sounded like he was hectoring, and used poor hand gestures. And I thought that the negativity of Romney's closing statement was not wise. Obama seemed to get lost in the subordinate clauses of his responses - he needs to use much shorter sentences.

coynedj wrote:I don't think the debate will change anything.

Frank Luntz' polling would suggest otherwise.

coynedj wrote:Obama seemed to get lost in the subordinate clauses of his responses - he needs to use much shorter sentences.

TOTUS was absent.

coynedj wrote:I don't think the debate will change anything. No gaffes, no killer lines that will be remembered. Both said what their supporters wanted them to say.

I tend to watch style as much as listen to what's said. Obama spent a lot of time looking down when he wasn't speaking - I assume he was taking notes, but it did him no favors. Romney towards the end sounded like he was hectoring, and used poor hand gestures. And I thought that the negativity of Romney's closing statement was not wise. Obama seemed to get lost in the subordinate clauses of his responses - he needs to use much shorter sentences.

I'm not so sure. I watched Luntz with his focus group of undecideds after the debate and the swing to Romney, and the sense that Romney had swept the floor with Obama was clear.

Moreover, this is a funny election. A lot of people who voted for Obama last time because he made the right noises about bipartisanship and the deficit and hope and change are unhappy with Obama, but reluctant to admit (to themselves and others) that voting for Obama was a colossal mistake and reluctant to vote against the First Black president. They needed 'permission' to go for Romney and, if the focus group was really a representative sample of undecideds (always a question with small samples), they perceive they got it big time.

In a slightly different sense, this time the debates may be as big a deal in changing perceptions as they were thought to be in 1960.

I remember the debates in 1960 and I remember how many people who'd watched them on TV were convinced JFK came across as much more presidential than Tricky cutlass.

I thought Romney did a nice job, although I'm not convinced that (a) he was telling the truth about his tax plan and (b) that it would work the way he said. I think Romney's the one selling "hope" this time.

[quote postid="5194116" user="ThunderThighs"
And Lehrer needs to be replaced. He couldn't control either candidate.[/quote]

Well, Jim Lehrer is semi-senile. And spent his career in well left-of-center PBS. No one has ever accused him of not being an obvious and often partisan liberal Democrat. A nice enough man, one hears, but hardly an even-handed moderator.

But, isn't the idea of a debate to let the candidates spar with each other rather than have a moderator "direct" things in accordance with his biases?

rpm wrote:But, isn't the idea of a debate to let the candidates spar with each other rather than have a moderator "direct" things in accordance with his biases?

I would like the debates about 94x better if the candidates could actually debate each other.

ThunderThighs wrote:Yes, it's fine for them to spar but they went over their time limits and kept rehashing the same areas instead of moving on to the topics that had been scheduled.

The idea of a moderator is to guide the thing along. Lehrer wasn't able to do that.

I suppose I'd rather see the candidates follow up on topics they're discussing to a logical end point - pretty much as they did - rather than have things cut off arbitrarily because the moderator wants to move on.

ThunderThighs wrote:Yes, it's fine for them to spar but they went over their time limits and kept rehashing the same areas instead of moving on to the topics that had been scheduled.

The idea of a moderator is to guide the thing along. Lehrer wasn't able to do that.

He wasn't able to do that at all. I liked the part where he interrupted Obama, who then said "I still had 5 seconds to go when you interrupted me."

And then proceeded to take 1 to 2 more minutes to go on.

kylemittskus wrote:I would like the debates about 94x better if the candidates could actually debate each other.

+10

It was annoying how little they actually debated and how much time they spent stumping.

On top of this, there were several times that a DIRECT question was asked and the cannidate sidestepped the question and then proceeded on with a talking point, never actually addressing the question.

cmaldoon wrote:+10

It was annoying how little they actually debated and how much time they spent stumping.

On top of this, there were several times that a DIRECT question was asked and the cannidate sidestepped the question and then proceeded on with a talking point, never actually addressing the question.

In other words, just like every other presidential candidate's debate. If anything substantive would come out of these debates they wouldn't have them. It is all about fluff, image and the hope that they can trap the other candidate in a misstatement. The biggest reason Kennedy won the debate with (shudder)Nixon was that Kennedy was far more telegenic than (shudder)Nixon and Kennedy was more TV savvy than (shudder)Nixon.

(Sorry, I just can't write that name without a strong negative reaction)

edlada wrote:In other words, just like every other presidential candidate's debate. If anything substantive would come out of these debates they wouldn't have them. It is all about fluff, image and the hope that they can trap the other candidate in a misstatement. The biggest reason Kennedy won the debate with (shudder)Nixon was that Kennedy was far more telegenic than (shudder)Nixon and Kennedy was more TV savvy than (shudder)Nixon.

(Sorry, I just can't write that name without a strong negative reaction)

It's easy: Tricky cutlass, Tricky cutlass, Tricky cutlass.

Or, Devious Richard if you prefer something a bit more dignified.

I met cutlass Nixon a couple of times. I was impressed by his obvious intelligence and photographic memory for names and faces (the second time I met him he remembered me by name and that he had met me in a receiving line at the 1964 convention at the St.Francis Hotel in San Francisco. He still gave me a bit of the creeps.

cmaldoon wrote:On top of this, there were several times that a DIRECT question was asked and the cannidate sidestepped the question and then proceeded on with a talking point, never actually addressing the question.

That's exactly the problem with allowing the candidates to debate each other directly. If they actually answered questions it would be terrific, but going without a moderator would just garantee that very little would be covered. Instead of 10 minutes of blather on 5 topics, we'd have 50 minutes of blather on one topic.

I just thought I'd mention something unrelated to the debate, just to show how much different sites can differ.

On another site dedicated to something other than politics but with a politics thread, I got called a crazy right-winger the other day. Something tells me that I'm not thought of that way around here.

All for pointing out how Eric Hobsbawm (I'm sure rpm has read all of his books) was a brilliant historian but was also a foolish apologist for a dreadful ideology. And for supporting that position when challenged to discuss the comparative death tolls of communism vs capitalism.

coynedj wrote:I just thought I'd mention something unrelated to the debate, just to show how much different sites can differ.

On another site dedicated to something other than politics but with a politics thread, I got called a crazy right-winger the other day. Something tells me that I'm not thought of that way around here.

All for pointing out how Eric Hobsbawm (I'm sure rpm has read all of his books) was a brilliant historian but was also a foolish apologist for a dreadful ideology. And for supporting that position when challenged to discuss the comparative death tolls of communism vs capitalism.

Hanging out at the Democratic Underground, are we?

I read quite a bit of Hobsbawm in my callow youth, and still have a few of his books in my library. I know he's still widely admired as an historian, but I always thought his work rather too shot through with his ideology. My sense was that his politics (hard Stalinist, perfectly happy apparently to see millions killed to usher in the workers' paradise) had more to do with his reputation than the actual historical work. I'm not sure who was worse: Hobsbawm or E.H. Carr. Among that whole generation of very left-wing British historians, I think about the only one who I really find still has much interesting to say is A.J.P. Taylor, and perhaps R.G. Collingwood on the philosophy of history (one of my fields).

rpm wrote:Hanging out at the Democratic Underground, are we?

I read quite a bit of Hobsbawm in my callow youth, and still have a few of his books in my library. I know he's still widely admired as an historian, but I always thought his work rather too shot through with his ideology. My sense was that his politics (hard Stalinist, perfectly happy apparently to see millions killed to usher in the workers' paradise) had more to do with his reputation than the actual historical work. I'm not sure who was worse: Hobsbawm or E.H. Carr. Among that whole generation of very left-wing British historians, I think about the only one who I really find still has much interesting to say is A.J.P. Taylor, and perhaps R.G. Collingwood on the philosophy of history (one of my fields).

Ah, but I said it was a non-political site. I never bother with Democratic Underground.

I think Hobsbawm has value in his historical writings, and have several of his volumes in my library as well. Carr has the ignominy of being wrong not only on one totalitarian system, but on two. He was a fool. It's been some time since I've read any Taylor, and have never read any Collingwood.

coynedj wrote:Ah, but I said it was a non-political site. I never bother with Democratic Underground.

I think Hobsbawm has value in his historical writings, and have several of his volumes in my library as well. Carr has the ignominy of being wrong not only on one totalitarian system, but on two. He was a fool. It's been some time since I've read any Taylor, and have never read any Collingwood.

Well, I was having fun with the DU toss-off....

You're unlikely to have encountered Collingwood's purely historical work unless you're an ancient historian - he did fine work on Roman Britain back in the day. His more modern claim to fame (such as it is) is more as a philosopher. Mostly as a philosopher of history, but also as a philosopher of art. A very different approach from the more "scientific" philosophers of history like Hempel. Collingwood's The Idea of History is worth reading if you're interested in the field, not otherwise. Apparently, traditional (as opposed to Marxist or post-modern) philosophy of history is not so much in fashion these days. I do indeed despair for the professional study of history, to which I devoted a fair bit of my youth.

What do you all think about Gary Johnson? It could be said that voting for the guy who's not going to win is throwing away your vote. But if you don't like either of the other two guys? Maybe I'm just in a mood today, but I feel like I'll be disappointed no matter who wins.

chemvictim wrote:What do you all think about Gary Johnson? It could be said that voting for the guy who's not going to win is throwing away your vote. But if you don't like either of the other two guys? Maybe I'm just in a mood today, but I feel like I'll be disappointed no matter who wins.

I posted about Gary Johnson forever ago. I love him. And he'll never, ever win.

chemvictim wrote:What do you all think about Gary Johnson? It could be said that voting for the guy who's not going to win is throwing away your vote. But if you don't like either of the other two guys? Maybe I'm just in a mood today, but I feel like I'll be disappointed no matter who wins.

If you read through my debate tirade on facebook you'll see I noted I'm voting for him. It may be a wasted vote, but I prefer him to The Smiler and The Beast.

kylemittskus wrote:I posted about Gary Johnson forever ago. I love him. And he'll never, ever win.

this

Given that I will be voting in California where my vote will mean less than nothing, I am actually debating whether or not to write in Ron Paul or to just vote for Johnson. Why I am debating this when it is entirely inconsequential I'm not sure, but I am. :|

kylemittskus wrote:I posted about Gary Johnson forever ago. I love him. And he'll never, ever win.

He won't win, but if I'm going to be disappointed in the outcome anyway, why not vote for the one I'm not mad at? 'Course, I'm probably "not mad" at him only because I don't know enough about him. I poked around on his website. Simple, reasonable, and to the point. Somehow I thought Nevada would have a much bigger turnout for Lib candidates, but not so in 2008 at least.

jawlz wrote:Given that I will be voting in California where my vote will mean less than nothing, I am actually debating whether or not to write in Ron Paul or to just vote for Johnson. Why I am debating this when it is entirely inconsequential I'm not sure, but I am. :|

Ron Paul strikes me as a bit unbalanced.

bhodilee wrote:If you read through my debate tirade on facebook you'll see I noted I'm voting for him. It may be a wasted vote, but I prefer him to The Smiler and The Beast.

Which is which? lol

I dislike Romney, but he doesn't scare me that much. Paul Ryan is terrifying.

chemvictim wrote:Which is which? lol

I dislike Romney, but he doesn't scare me that much. Paul Ryan is terrifying.

Romney is the Smiler, Obama the Beast