How hard is it really, to just not use the words "shrill" or "cackle"

[cali]

in regard to HRC? Why not just take the high road? Look, I don't like JE as candidate, but I don't use "pretty boy" or "snake oil salesman" or perjoratives to describe him.

A number of us, Clinton supporters and non-supporters alike, find it disturbingly sexist. Why not just respect this, instead of insisting that it's just pretense to curb criticism of her. Maybe that's true of a few people, but as a woman and a non-supporter of Clinton, I find it offensive. And clueless.

[havocmom]

1. what wrong with accuracy

limiting language limits thoughts and truth

[pennylane100]

6. Then accuracy must demand a fuller description of all the male

candidates, when they laugh. Or is the rule that only female voices get critiqued.

[Joe the Revelator]

58. Have at it. I haven't seen anyone say you can't critique male voices.

[cali]

7. what nonsense.

We limit language all the time. And rightfully. I've seen your argument quite a few times on right wing sites. Would you use the word "uppity" to describe a black person you believe is arrogant? No? I thought not. Asking people not to engage in offensive language limits nothing. If you are so inarticulate that you can't come up with words that are both truthful and reflective of thought, than that's pitiable.

And "shrill" and "cackle" actually tell us little about Clinton. They've become so overused regarding her, that they're now merely generic insults.

[havocmom]

10. and I have seen the tactic of limits and labels to intimidate critic

Where have I seen that

Over

And over

And over

[cali]

12. I have no idea what you're talking about

I'm not saying that any criticism should be limited. I'm not trying to intimidate you. I'm trying to explain why certain terminology is offensive. That's it. Too bad you don't get it.

[havocmom]

15. And I have no idea about what freepers say

:rofl:

[cali]

19. On this subject

they sound just like you.

:rofl:

[havocmom]

24. and you

rovish but boring methods

[ChairmanAgnostic]

23. let me try

There is a candidate who frequently claps at inappropriate times, who laughs in a disturbing fashion as though the candidate's image makers insisted that a laugh be inserted at time X with a clap at time Y. Even when the timing and circumstances suggest that a good belly laugh would be a natural, even welcome, reaction, this candidate manages to make it sound offensive, unreal, and overly practiced. The laugh seems almost, well, just plain desperate and weird. As though the image makers said, "you seem to cold, calculating, rude, unconcerned, haughty and arrogant. We have to install a laugh track in your retinue. Try Disc A and practice."


I suspect that over x-mas, they will have tried Disc B, using the best Rosetta Stone-type technology.

[EV_Ares]

54. LOL, now that is a good job.

[EV_Ares]

48. What your post says is true but "actions speak louder than words" don't

they. You might read your own post and follow it, that would be good.

[aquart]

29. Oh, you don't really want to go there.

I guess you do.

Now about that accuracy...since it's not accurate, we don't have a problem, do we?

[Warpy]

2. Those words are always used to demean women

so keep expecting them from misogynists who want to hide what they are.

I don't like Clinton's stance on war nor her healthcare plan. However, that's where it ends.

If somebody can't criticise policy instead of mannerisms, dress, tone of voice, or other shallow concerns, then they have no business commenting on a political board.

[hlthe2b]

20. ditto...

While I respect Havocmom's stance on Senator Clinton as a candidate (I remain undecided, but have definitely not lent support to her at this stage of the primaries), I'm surprised that the use of the term is not likewise grating.... :shrug: I agree with Cali that it is unnecessary to use these kind of terms.

[terrya]

3. Exactly

It's not exactly subtle sexism, to be honest about it.

[patrice]

4. I've never thought those were accurate descriptions of her laugh.

She's not my favorite, but we NEED to get it right. She has a strong laugh, so what? She uses it, so what? That's all part of the game that all of them must play as long as campaigns are not publicly funded and as long as we do not have a National Voting Holiday that is based on paper ballots counted in public.

[loveangelc]

5. you just used those words to describe him in saying you wouldn't use those words

you're not slick.

[cali]

9. You're kidding right?

I post plenty of critical posts about JE, but I never use that language. I was giving a clear example of something that people could justly consider offensive, not using those words to describe him.

And I'm not remotely trying to be slick. Try getting out of that little rabbit cage in your brain.

[loveangelc]

16. ok, i will.

[Perry Logan]

8. Unfortunately, Hillary-haters have very poor impulse control.

[rolleitreks]

11. "Shrill" and "cackle" simply describe the tone of speech or laughter,

only this, and nothing more.

The language is immensely more important than your sensibilities or feelings, or the social progress of any subset of society, for that matter.

[cali]

14. No they don't. Go take a college course on

Women and language. This isn't exactly ground breaking stuff. Sorry, you're just flat out ignorant on the subject.

[aquart]

32. Bull flaming shit.

You cannot be that linguistically challenged. I would have to feel pity for you then.

[Jim Sagle]

13. I LIKE her laugh.

But she's still an empty pantsuit. ;)

[cali]

17. I'd much rather see her referred to as an empty pantsuit

than "shrill" or "cackling". That isn't blatantly sexist. In fact, it's kind of funny.

:hi:

[Jim Sagle]

34. Someone DID accuse me of sexism over that.

But that only lasted until I pointed out that I also refer to Obama as an empty suit.

[havocmom]

42. Had that same experience

Amazing. No matter what one points out, somebody will be pissed off. So, I guess we are supposed to not say anything at all.

That's what a dictator wants of his/her people.

[last_texas_dem]

18. A lot of DUers are probably offended by being called "clueless", "flat out ignorant",

and being told to get out of their "little rabbit cage" of a brain as well. It probably wouldn't be too hard to just not make statements like that about or towards people, either.

EDITED to add "probably"

[loveangelc]

21. thank you

what a hypocrite the OP is for trying to say we shouldn't insult the candidates and then tell me to get my brain out of a "little rabbit cage." Thats why I can't take anything the OP seriously.

[havocmom]

43. Or, that, since I don't agree with the OP, I sound like a freeper

Must be some teflon suit.

[last_texas_dem]

44. No problem

I've read enough of the OP's insults and attacks towards others on here to question the "can't we all just get along" nature of the post. It wasn't difficult to find plenty of fresh insults coming from the OP in this thread alone.

[JohnnyLib2]

22. Consciousness raising; it's become a quaint term.

And yet so necessary.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Absolutely. Cultures are like gardens

They take constant weeding if you don't want them to revert to becoming the same as the fields and lots surrounding you.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. We were talking about the difference between plain old bile...

...and sexist and racist bile. Since this is a basically progressive board one would think certain types of attacks would be frowned upon on their face.

[aquart]

30. Nope. Only the racist ones.

[Tejanocrat]

37. But when you can find plenty of examples of people describing Kucinich, Biden, and Obama as "shrill"

how is it sexist to use the same term to Hillary that has been applied to Kucinich, Biden, and Obama? I find poster who wrote the OP extremely shrill, and I don't need to know the poster's gender to reach that conclusion because the shrillness comes in the form of the constant negativity and half-truths which have the tone of desperation.

The shrillness from Hillary has only become evidence since she's fallen behind in the key states. She didn't seem shrill before. It is her tone of desperation which has changed, not her gender.

[havocmom]

63. Have seen DK refered to as whimpy and elfish looking.

Have seen JE attacked for being so well groomed - like being photogenic in a visual medium is a bad thing.

Biden has been called wishy-washy.

All those things, given that they are used to describe various males, are rather pointed remarks too.

As to shrill... what I find most annoying about shrill are the HRC supporters who will attack the posters of any criticism of HRC, whether the criticism can be even remotely considered sexist. THere are some male HRC supporters who have posted some rather SHRILL remarks to and about those who do not share their enthusiasm for Clinton.

Shrill is not just a gender thing.

[0007]

67. One would think! The op believes everything is directed toward her.

Bitterness of temper = ill humor and irascibility. Either of two bodily humors, black bile or yellow bile.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tejanocrat]

38. Oh you're welcome,

You think of yourself as "snarky" in the same way that ugly people think of themselves as "unphotogenic," which is to say that only you would come up with as forgiving a term as "snarky" to describe your diatribes.

[EV_Ares]

49. Now, there you go very civil comment & you expect people to take

you serious with these posts, lol.

[EV_Ares]

50. you really should have said "deserve it" "not deserver it",

[aquart]

28. And SEXIST.

[sniffa]

31. not hard at all

it's more of a guilty pleasure.

[aquart]

33. Have chocolate instead.

[sniffa]

35. i would, but i'm watching my weight

[havocmom]

47. Hmm, sounds sorta, well...

sexist ;)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

39. It is a blunt show of power, and will not be relinquished

The objective is to be as offensive as possible without being deleted.

I think it is roughly equivalent to describing Obama's stump speech as "a bunch of jive." It is suggestive of offensive stereotyping but not quite over the line.

I would prefer that people just say whatever they want to say. It is infuriating to hear a Fox news panel speaking in code about Democrats, women and minorities... I would much prefer they just put it on the table.

[havocmom]

40. It would be great if we lived in a culture that looked beyond superficial characteristics

Even better if the culture were not so malleable to marketing techniques. Gads, how much better the world would be if we didn't confuse 'want' with 'need' and let marketing and focus group research lead us to our own demise.

But, fact is: We still have this marketing thing to deal with in the here & now. No candidate, no matter how great, will reach a position to really affect change unless they have strong marketing. To ignore that is to guarantee the best people will pretty much never get to set policy.

Kucinich IS the best progressive candidate. He does not have a snowball's chance in hell in a general election. He is deemed too 'weird'. He was honest enough to admit he saw something flying by which has yet to be identified. And he sure as hell does not have the accepted appearance of an Alpha Male that people want when they think top dog leadership position.

Biden is a very wise and experienced man. But he is perceived (perhaps rightly, perhaps not) as being less than reliable because he lifted some words and didn't credit them.

For many, Edwards looks too rich and well manicured. That works against him with a lot of image concerned people.

Point is, sadly, perceptions and marketing DO still matter and ignoring human nature along with cultural norms will not help get good people elected.

Hell, yes, I wish we were evolved way beyond the point that superficial characteristics should matter. Makes me sad to know there are THOUSANDS of people out there who would be better to lead us than most of the bozos in offices now.

But, we, as a species, and particularly as a people, are not there yet. Wishing will not make it so. Ignoring won't either.

And, I have done some women's studies also. Yeah, it IS tougher for women to reach the seat of power here. Yeah, the field is WAY tilted. Also tilted against the poor and working classes. Hell, most can't even get a glimmer of an education so how can they pull themselves up by the bootstraps the top 1% is so fond of referring to (but never actually had to do)?

Talk about a candidate's pros. By all means. That should be the basic drive in political discussions as we go through the primary process. But DO NOT limit discussion of the real negatives or we have only done part of the job.

Primaries are to decide the strongest candidate for the general election. Limiting any genuine and frank discourse on the marketing problems of any and all candidates is a sure fire way to miss the best, most well rounded, strongest candidate, for fear of saying something some branch of the group decided is politically incorrect. ALL things must be weighed. It is not sexist to address that reality.

[JAbuchan08]

41. In the interest of gender neutrality I will only refer to Hillary's "derisive" laugh and

"condescending" tone, and I encourage everyone else here to do that as well. We wouldn't want to give Cali and the rest of the Hillary troopers more ammunition to distract from the substance of Hillary's personality flaws.

[havocmom]

45. Some seriously gender-neutral problem I have with some of the candidates

$$$...Who OWNS your candidate?...$$$ post. It's DAMNED IMPORTANT for consideration

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3842491&mesg_id=3842491

[havocmom]

46. Don't care who laughs how; here's something to think about, but you won't laugh much

Common Cause add about lobbyist $$ v public financed elections and who is for the latter (dial up warning, PDF takes a while to load on acrobat)

http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/FAIRELECTIONSADFINAL.PDF
Shows candidates who have committed in writing to work on public financing of elections and those who have refused to commit in writing to the effort.

Clinton & Richardson are in the latter line, along with a whole lotta Republicans.

No gender based slam. Just the facts, ma'am


Good thread on the subject
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3847469

[havocmom]

51. Lunch time for the HRC supporters?

:hi:

I'll be here all week.

[EV_Ares]

52. Hey, thanks for posting that, interesting that Hillary is standing alone

with the republicans & all the other dems are together.

Puts a little more perspective on the reason Hillary supporters are attacking those like Edwards all the time.

[havocmom]

53. Now, be fair. Richardson is in that line with all the Republicans

See, not about gender. And yes, it does make one wonder at the emphasis on gender related language on lesser points. Perhaps some don't want anyone to notice the more important differences which have nada to do with gender. ;)

[EV_Ares]

55. You are right but actually, I forget about Richardson most of the time

which I shouldn't but for some reason do.

[havocmom]

56. And that is one of HIS marketing problems. He is forgettable

Now, have I offended those who don't want me to use accurate language which may offend men too?
:rofl:

[EV_Ares]

60. LOL, man, you are on target today.

[havocmom]

61. just the facts

and not much willingness to be intimated by some of the tactics used too often around here. ;)

[EV_Ares]

68. Good for you because those tactics are attempted for sure around

here. Enjoyed it and have a good evening.

[havocmom]

71. Thank you. Been a pleasure to sing a little with you.

Have a good week.

[Joe the Revelator]

57. I think I've made it quite clear that I will not parse words when talking about Hillary's voice

I have seen no reason to. The people who are upset over the word "shrill" are ridiculous reactionaries who are trying to deflect from their candidates shortcomings under the ruse of sexism.

That's just silly.

[havocmom]

62. Bravo

A shortcoming is a shortcoming, no matter who has it or what their gender. :thumbsup:

[Sparkly]

72. "ridiculous reactionaries"

Nice... :eyes:

[Snarkturian Clone]

59. No word should ever be stifled.

Any such stifling is a restriction of freedom. Seriously, don't let a WORD bother you. If the worst thing that happened to you today is that someone used "cackle" to describe Hillary's demon-induced vocal eruptions, consider yourself lucky.

Since you think we need to accommodate people who are offended at words typed on a screen, I'll let you know right now that i take offense to you being so easily offended and therefore demand you delete your post.

[beaconess]

64. Apparently pretty hard . . .

For those having difficulties figuing out how to deal with that "uppity" woman.

[havocmom]

65. Pehaps is it less your suggestion

and more just having hurt ears.

Who around here seriously called Clinton an uppity woman? I sure missed that one.

[beaconess]

75. No need to call her an "uppity woman" when so many euphemisms are available

like labeling her laugh a "cackle," describing her as "shrill," etc.

[havocmom]

78. My ears are not particularly sexist

same as the rest of me. Saying someone's voice, laugh and mannerisms are sometimes shrill or her laugh is like a crackle can actually be an honest opinion without sexism thrown in.

And attacking the slightest criticism by labeling it what it is not is... well, shrill. And not the way to win support.

[gmudem]

66. If she stops being shrill and cackling

Then people will stop. She has an awful speaking voice and obviously fake laugh. Deal with it.

[havocmom]

79. Amen. Do Kucinich supporters claim bigotry and sexism when someone points out he is sorta odd?

I think he is great, the most progressive one out there right now, but he has some characteristics which make him less than pleasing to the senses.

HRC's laugh does annoy a lot of people. So does bush*s laugh. I fail to see where calling it as we hear it is sexist.

[Rowdyboy]

69. self-delete

[ellisonz]

70. How about the Grand Poobah of Deception?

[Sparkly]

73. It'd be interesting to see people who use these terms come up with other words.

What do they really mean by them? Is there another word or phrase to reach for that would explain their meaning?

What exactly is meant by "shrill?"

How is a "cackle" different from laughing acceptably?

I'd seriously like to see that discussed.

[Kat45]

74. I'd always heard the word "cackle" to refer to a witch's laugh.

Maybe it's just me, but that is the only way I'd ever heard it used (before this campaign). I always think of it that way, and I feel that its use about Hillary is a thinly-veiled way of calling her a witch. :shrug:

[LittleBlue]

76. Why are Hillary's supporters so obsessed with sexism

and Obama so focused on hope rather than racism? I never hear his supporters talking about this crap. The rhetoric is about a new attitude rather than old (before my time) prejudices. I guess us young people aren't fixated on the past. :shrug:

[havocmom]

80. It keeps the converstation directed away from the big donor$

:hi:

[Clanfear]

77. We are talking about the highest office in the land

If the terms cackle or shrill need to be avoided, then perhaps the highest ofice needs to be avoided.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

81. While were on the subject, using "gay" as a generalized put-down is offensive

Stop it, out of simple respect for the gay community. I don't care if that's not the way you mean it, everyone knows damn well the use of gay as a put-down was derived from homophobia.

[Hieronymus]

82. You just did you those words to describe Edwards.. you must love Penn.