Wow this article is so fucked up. I’m so tired of the conservative hypocrisy with their “traditional values”.
These attacks don’t deserve a well thought out response because they’re not legitimate criticisms. They’re just harassing (liberal/leftist) women hoping to make them feel like they don’t belong in politics.
These women are democratically elected representatives. They’re here to pass legislation and represent constituents. They’re not here for your “viewing pleasure” and didn’t ask for your opinions on their appearance.
I’m sick and tired of losing women in politics to these assholes.
“No one is calling Premier David Eby about the appearance of his hair and what he’s wearing.”
Would it work if they did? Not likely. The naysayers did try going down that road with Trudeau once upon a time, calling attention to his hair on numerous occasions, and nothing ever indicated that it bothered him.
The naysayers will always tailor their attacks to what they think will be more bothersome to the individual being attacked, not with a fixed set of statements used across every individual.
Seemingly it does work when the target is a woman. After all, we have a whole article here about how it does bother many.
“‘For a long time, we have created an environment where we let these kinds of things to happen, so bringing such hateful, sexist comments to light is exactly what we should be doing,’ said Blades.”
Stoicism and turning the other cheek hasn’t worked. So calling it out makes perfect sense.
Trudeau is a single example of a man facing a similar issue, so just come up with 5-10 more and you’ll be close to convincing me.
Blaming people for not brushing off comments like this is pretty gross. Why don’t we try holding people to a minimum standard of behaviour that includes not harassing others who are effectively strangers? You know, a new solution for an old problem that hasn’t previously been solved with the old solutions?
Obama’s tan suit. Trump’s hair, skin, weight. That’s just off the top of my head.
I’m not defending the behaviour. I can’t believe anyone is so stupid to think someone else’s appearance is any of their business.
Stoicism and turning the other cheek hasn’t worked. So calling it out makes perfect sense.
Is there some reason to think it doesn’t make sense? Your non-sequitur’s purpose is not made clear.
Trudeau is a single example of a man facing a similar issue, so just come up with 5-10 more and you’ll be close to convincing me.
First you have to show that the naysayers see it as an effective tool in bringing down the typical male politician. Nobody is going to try to waste their time attacking someone using an attack that doesn’t work.
Blaming people for not brushing off comments like this is pretty gross.
I would have thought so, but here you are. Why do you want to introduce blame? Especially when it too is a non-sequitur.
I just thought I must be misunderstanding you when you argued that it’s fine to attack the appearance of women in politics because it only bother them, and not the men.
Or, how about we instead expect people to engage with politicians about their politics instead of diverting to attacks on their appearance “because it doesn’t seem to bother men when it’s done to them.”
I know it hasn’t worked because I’ve been working in a male-dominated field for almost a decade, and I and other women have noticed that people will keep fucking with you unless you face them down and call them out on it. Women in politics just aren’t allowed to cuss as much when they do it as I am.
By your use of “non-sequitur,” I suspect that you’re only interested in a strictly-moderated debate that you can “win” rather than a good-faith discussion of a specific phenomenon in society, and I’m not interested. I was merely stating my view from an adjacent viewpoint, hoping to have a discussion that could lead to useful knowledge shared on the topic.
Instead I appear to have touched a nerve.
when you argued that it’s fine to attack the appearance of women in politics because it only bother them, and not the men.
I fail to understand your logic. “Fine” requires some kind of feelings or opinion towards the subject, and sharing such feelings is nonsensical. Not only is it in bad faith, nobody gives a rat’s ass about what you are feeling.
Obviously I have misinterpreted you. Perhaps you can help clarify?
I honestly don’t understand why you think that “sharing such feelings is nonsensical.” Can you provide a basis for this statement? You’ve pulled that out of nowhere as far as I can tell, introducing a rule that benefits you for no apparent reason.
We’re commenting on a news fluff piece about a woman’s views on how women are treated in politics. I’m sharing my observations and “feelings” on a similar trend I’ve seen in trades. I came out of the gate strong because I’ve had this conversation dozens of times in the last decade, and am heavily invested in the topic, which I guess involves “feelings.” Not sure why this is a problem. Feelings provide measureable feedback for social interactions and psychological states, and “feelings” and manipulating them en-masse seems to literally be a currency in today’s world, so potentially the opposite of “no one giv[ing] a rat’s ass” about them.
This conversation with you is difficult for me to navigate, because you have entered it seemingly by a completely different set of conversational rules than me. It was really off putting. My goal in this conversation was fairly casual, as one might discuss with a coworker or neighbour.
As for the non-sequitur, my paragraph you quoted was directly responsive to the text directly above it that I quoted from the article. I don’t consider it, on reviewing it, to even be a non-sequitur.
You honestly just come across as super rude, and taking into account that attacking women’s “feelings” is another common tactic used to undermine us on a constant basis (she’s moody, bitchy, high-strung, etc), it’s in pretty poor taste and potentially bad-faith argument in the context of this discussion.
I either have an issue with your tone (which makes me cringe because tone policing is shitty, but I’ll own what I’ve said) or your worldview, which must be hard to live with if that’s the case, in which case I sympathize.
TL;DR: I’m here to casually discuss this article with random people on the internet, I’m not entirely sure why you’re here but I’m a little curious.
It’s not about bothering the politician. It’s a political attack, designed to score political points. And the thing about political attacks, especially cheap ones, is that the person you attack can try to turn it around and make you look dumb. Trudeau calculated that calling his attackers out for their cheap shots would hurt him more than it would help, and he was probably right, since mocking aesthetic qualities is generally socially acceptable when the target is male. Anderson calculated that defending herself, and in so doing making her attackers look sexist and stupid, was the best move in her position, and I suspect she was right.
The attack has to think it is going to bother the politician. It may fail to, but it has to believe it will, else how is it going to score any political points? “Hey look, you live in BC!” wouldn’t go anywhere. All you are going to get is “Yeah, and?” – both from the ‘assailed’ and those you are trying to score points with. It has to prey on what someone think’s is another’s insecurity to have any use.
