Political watcher says Stronach backlash sexist

[CHIMO]

Political watcher says Stronach backlash sexist
Last updated May 18 2005 11:39 AM MDT



EDMONTON – Some vitriolic comments over MP Belinda Stronach's move to the Liberal party are being labeled sexist and offensive.


The backlash against Stronach's surprise switch included remarks by two Conservatives who called Stronach a "dipstick … an attractive one but still a dipstick" and someone who "whored herself out for power."

The first comment came from Bob Runciman, a veteran member of the Ontario legislature. The second comment was from Tony Abbott, a Conservative MLA in Alberta.

http://edmonton.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ed_stronach20050518

Nothing in a written transcript yet but heard that the Alberta MLA had to be restrained in the leg today by a security officer when he wanted to light into an opposition member for criticizing him about his comment.

[iverglas]

1. just read that a few minutes ago

and jeez, I'm one of the tetchiest ones you can find, but I don't especially agree.

Linda Trimble, a political scientist at the University of Alberta, says it's unlikely such comments would have been made against a male politician.

"When she's being called a whore and a dipstick, well that's intensely personal and it goes to her integrity. Those are not the kinds of comments made when politicians cross the floor."

There are a few problems with all that.

First of all, she wasn't called a whore, she was charged with "whoring for the Liberals" (I saw the comment made, on CBC). I find the word "whore" pretty offensive, to be sure. But I'm not sure that the same thing would not have been said about a male equivalent of Stronach. It would have been around DU, I think. ;)

The term is misogynist, the use of the label against a man is misogynist, since it hinges on a misogynist characterization of women. But was it "sexist" to use it re: Stronach in particular? I guess I can only say maybe; one would have to know the intent of the speaker.

But "dipstick"? Oxford says: "a foolish or inept person; an idiot". Is it sexist to call a woman an idiot? Not if she is.

That seems to me to be the issue: is Stronach an idiot, or is she being called an idiot because she is a woman?

I know quite well that I've been called an idiot (or worse) by men for no reason other than that I'm a woman. The entire context conveys quite clearly that what I am/say/do is being dismissed because of my sex and whatever problems the speaker has with women / whatever reasons the speaker has for seeking to exclude women from public discourse, and not because anything I was/said/did was actually idiotic.

But Stronach? I have to say I don't know her, or know enough about her, to have a really worthwhile opinion. But she sure sounds like an idiot to me. And she'd sound just the same, and I'd say just the same thing, if she were male. Should I not, because she's female?

Trimble said the candidate's aspirations were often ridiculed, her qualifications trivialized, and her youth and looks were the subject of vulgar and excessive obsession.

They deserved to be, they deserved to be, and her looks (which I can't understand anyone being at all impressed by anyhow) were made an issue by her.

I have a problem with people who themselves so plainly seek to use their appearance to advance their ambitions that they distort it beyond all recognition in an effort to make it more likely to serve their ends -- and then are heard to complain about remarks like "an attractive one but still a dipstick". Basically, if you're going to get your hair colour out of a bottle (and would it be anything but blonde?) and plaster yourself in cosmetics and starve yourself to a stick -- blatantly cry out to be judged according to your conformity to stereotypical/idealized female beauty rather than just look the way you look and be judged according to what you say and do -- you brung it on yourself. If you don't want to be treated like a stereotype, fer fuck's sake don't act like one.

There's no shortage of real misogyny in Cdn politics. Deborah Grey, anyone? Sheila Copps? There were vicious things said about them because of their non-conformity to female stereotypes/ideals, and that's more like a real problem.

Stronach ... well, if it looks like a dipstick and walks like a dipstick and talks like a dipstick, and sells its services for personal gain without regard for principle or for other people, then I'd say that it's an idiot ... that sells its services for personal gain without regard for principle or for other people.

And that's pretty much what Stronach looks like to me.

[CHIMO]

2. You Have

A nice way of slipping words into articles that weren't there.

Anyway. I guess that elected members will now have to take boxing and other defensive measures to be able to talk in the legislatures of Canada. Must be going back to the old days when sir John set the standards.

[iverglas]

4. you need

You Have
A nice way of slipping words into articles that weren't there.

to explain that. It sounds kinda like an insulting allegation, but it's a little too bald for me to be sure what it means, let alone what it might be based on.

In case this is what you're referring to: this is what I heard on teevee --

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050518.wstronach0518/BNStory/National/

a little rich girl who is basically whoring herself out to the Liberals

and that is what I was referring to. I didn't "slip it into" the article; I quoted it from my memory of what I had heard. If it isn't what the article you cited was referring to, well there ya go.

I see that there was also an assertion that she was a "political harlot". I hadn't previously heard or read that (and the article you posted didn't actually quote what had actually been said, but I guess it might have been referring to that). But about that too: what I said. To the extent that it would have been said about a man, it isn't sexist (although it might still be misogynist); to the extent that it wouldn't, it could be.

You posted the article without comment. I hate it when people do that. What do you think?

[CHIMO]

6. First of all, she wasn't called a whore

No where is this stated.

If one looks below the URL link they will see my comment.
In no way did I state an opinion on the article itself. It was on the action that occurred subsequently in the Alberta legislature. Maybe a few more than just Alberta legislators have thin skin.

[iverglas]

7. okay, I'm not getting it.

You posted a link to an article at a CBC website.

I replied and QUOTED the second and third paragraphs of that article; the first of those two was this:

"When she's being called a whore and a dipstick, well that's intensely personal and it goes to her integrity. Those are not the kinds of comments made when politicians cross the floor."

So what does this:

First of all, she wasn't called a whore
No where is this stated.

mean? It WAS stated that she was called a whore. *I* was the one who said she wasn't called a whore, she was accused of "whoring".

If you have a problem with the statement that she was called a whore, your problem is with Linda Trimble, who made the statement that she *was* called a whore -- not with me. I'm the one who said she *wasn't* called a whore.

However, she apparently (I subsequently saw) *was* called a harlot. "Harlot", of course, is another word for "whore".

If one looks below the URL link they will see my comment.

Yes, that's true. But the title, and subject, of the article was "Political watcher says Stronach backlash sexist". That is what *I* was commenting on.

It was on the action that occurred subsequently in the Alberta legislature. Maybe a few more than just Alberta legislators have thin skin.

And the whole thing was just a tad cryptic, and I guess that's some other kind of indirect something or other, but I guess I won't worry about what. I'm not seeing thin skin in my own vicinity.

Since my entire comment was about the actual subject of the article, and not a response to anything you said, I'm still just not gettin it.

[CHIMO]

15. Point Taken

I was referring to the words that the official politician said.

I guess only whoring is done by whores.

I do think that the words said by the politician are sexist.

The CBC radio had a news item that Tony Abbott had confronted an opposition member who had commented in the legislator about the comments. He had to be restrained by a security guard to prevent him from attacking the member as they left the legislature.

[iverglas]

21. the enemy of my enemy is not my friend!

The fact that I may think that criticism of a Conservative is unfounded by no means means that I am not critical of the Conservative, keep in mind!

Heck, I'd do the same for a Liberal.

Heck ... I have done the same for a Liberal. I think that all the hoohah about Carolyn Parrish and her "damn yankees" was totally unfounded sophistry, and I said so in no uncertain terms. I wouldn't necessarily want her for my MP and I doubt that I'd vote for her, simply because she's a Liberal. But even being a Liberal doesn't mean that you're never right. ;)

[Spazito]

3. Geez, you might want to turn up your 'tetchiness' meter a notch

if you don't find the comments sexist, I certainly do. I suspect if I were to exchange the name of the target to one belonging to the NDP party but left all your comments related to the name exactly the same, you would be offended as you should be.

[iverglas]

5. guess it's time to go home

That's what I prefer to do when the conversation degenerates to baseless personal allegations.

I suspect if I were to exchange the name of the target to one belonging to the NDP party but left all your comments related to the name exactly the same, you would be offended as you should be.

If you could find me a dipstick in the NDP who has sold out his/her and the party's principles for personal gain, we could test your allegation.

Oh, okay. Ujjal Dosanjh. Tell ya what. Call him a harlot all you like. But well, he isn't really a dipstick.

Did you maybe not notice that the two women who I said HAD definitely been the victims of vicious misogynist attacks -- Deborah Grey and Sheila Copps -- are NOT New Democrats? And that one's even a Liberal?

[Joel]

8. from an insider on the outside

here at DU I can tell you people in the party have been worse about Belinda longer than this week. It's never been sexist. It's about big gaps on policy. How popular do you think I would be in the NDP if I started attacking Jack Layton for not cutting taxes and reducing spending?

Harper personally gains by having Belinda out of his hair gel, but the 905 belt just got that much harder to win for the party as a whole. Not a good week, but at least I can still hold out hope for a Lord, McKay hostile takeover... sigh...

[Spazito]

11. I have no idea if what went on for the weeks prior to

Belinda leaving was sexist or not, I can only say I found the comments by some after she left to be sexist and offensive. Had they criticized her on her policy positions and why she didn't fit with the party, etc, I would have had no problem with harsh criticism on that.

I agree Harper is better off without her there for his own personal leadership aims, in the short term anyway, but I do think he created more problems for himself and the party by handling it in the way he did.

[Spazito]

9. Interesting, I found your comments to be baseless and

without context and, to repeat myself, offensive, especially as you did say "I have to say I don't know her, or know enough about her, to have a really worthwhile opinion." Yet you went on:

"I have a problem with people who themselves so plainly seek to use their appearance to advance their ambitions that they distort it beyond all recognition in an effort to make it more likely to serve their ends -- and then are heard to complain about remarks like "an attractive one but still a dipstick". Basically, if you're going to get your hair colour out of a bottle (and would it be anything but blonde?) and plaster yourself in cosmetics and starve yourself to a stick -- blatantly cry out to be judged according to your conformity to stereotypical/idealized female beauty rather than just look the way you look and be judged according to what you say and do -- you brung it on yourself. If you don't want to be treated like a stereotype, fer fuck's sake don't act like one."

I would have to agree with you, it really isn't a worthwhile opinion.

[iverglas]

22. hmm

Mefeels I am being held to a higher standard than the general population hereabouts.

I did say I have to say I don't know her, or know enough about her, to have a really worthwhile opinion, as introduction to a particular opinion I expressed -- which followed directly, and was: But she sure sounds like an idiot to me.

By "worthwhile opinion", I generally mean one that can be fully backed up with sound facts and argument (something that is more noticeable in places like DU, and the public agora in general, by its absence than by its plentiful presence).

I don't happen to know Stronach's IQ score. I haven't observed how she conducts meetings of the board of directors of a multi-billion dollar corporation. I don't know whether she gets jokes. But I've observed her speaking in public quite a few times, through the magic of television. And I've read snippets of her performances in the House of Commons. And she sure sounds like an idiot to me.

My opinion, like anyone else's, is as good as the facts and reasoning behind it. If there are facts that indicate that she is a candidate for a Rhodes scholarship, or reasoning to show that my conclusion (tentative as it was) that she is an idiot is faulty, anybody's welcome to offer them.

But the other opinion that you quoted, as somehow related to my statement that my opinion might not be really worthwhile, wasn't actually connected to that statement.

The opinion that you quoted was my opinion about people who do certain things and then are heard to object to being judged according to the standards that they themselves have plainly adopted. (And I didn't actually say that Stronach had actually done this; it has been third parties making the objections and I don't see them as having any basis for doing so on her behalf -- let alone on my behalf, or women's in general, or anyone else's.)

A woman who moulds herself according to a stereotype, and who blatantly uses her conformation to that stereotype to advance her own interests, really ought not to object to being treated like that stereotype.

Deborah Grey is entirely entitled to object to being judged according to a misogynist, sexist standard imposed on women to which she cannot, or will not, conform. Ditto Sheila Copps.

A woman who bleaches her hair blonde, paints up her face and ... well, okay, some people are just naturally skinny, I suppose ... has chosen to alter herself to conform to a misogynist, sexist standard. She has quite plainly done that either because she's a victim of the society that requires that she do this in order to get ahead and can't get ahead any other way (women actors and hookers do come to mind), or because she's mindfully chosen to do it in order to be able to advance her own interests for reasons external to her abilities and the merits of what she does and says. She's either exploited or exploiter. Yes, a woman who chooses to conform to the stereotype in order to advance her own interests, knowing full well how oppressive it is to all women, is an exploiter.

Mind you, I don't think Ann Coulter is stupid (and being exploited). She's just evil. I don't think Belinda Stronach is necessary evil. However, since she has all the money and power she needs to get what she wants on a level playing field, I do think she's consciously chosen to conform to the stereotype in order to gain an advantage. (Maybe she's just an insecure little rich girl, but there really isn't a whole lot of evidence of that.)

But I also don't think she's Mensa material. Having enough smarts to exploit one's conformity to a stereotype doesn't necessarily mean that one has the smarts to handle a major governmental portfolio, let alone be Prime Minister.

The stereotype to which Stronach has chosen to conform includes airheadedness. It's a complete package. Certainly it's not wise to judge someone who is born blonde, rosy-cheeked and skinny to be an airhead -- but someone who chooses to be blonde, to disguise a countenance that is pleasant and agreeable enough with paint to make it appear "beautiful", and ... well, maybe she actually eats pizza ... that one has made her own bed.

So if you think that this opinion is not worthwhile -- that women who make the choice to conform to the stereotype of an airhead bimbo in order to advance their own interests, and who choose to use their appearance, which they deliberatly alter in a certain and stereotypical way, to advance those interests, rather than relying on their abilities and the merits of what they say and do, should not be heard to object to being treated like one, go right ahead and explain why.

[Spazito]

23. Are you honestly trying to say that these comments...

"I have a problem with people who themselves so plainly seek to use their appearance to advance their ambitions that they distort it beyond all recognition in an effort to make it more likely to serve their ends -- and then are heard to complain about remarks like "an attractive one but still a dipstick". Basically, if you're going to get your hair colour out of a bottle (and would it be anything but blonde?) and plaster yourself in cosmetics and starve yourself to a stick -- blatantly cry out to be judged according to your conformity to stereotypical/idealized female beauty rather than just look the way you look and be judged according to what you say and do -- you brung it on yourself. If you don't want to be treated like a stereotype, fer fuck's sake don't act like one."

were, in no way, connected to Belinda?

Gosh, I think you are:

But the other opinion that you quoted, as somehow related to my statement that my opinion might not be really worthwhile, wasn't actually connected to that statement.

"The opinion that you quoted was my opinion about people who do certain things and then are heard to object to being judged according to the standards that they themselves have plainly adopted. (And I didn't actually say that Stronach had actually done this; it has been third parties making the objections and I don't see them as having any basis for doing so on her behalf -- let alone on my behalf, or women's in general, or anyone else's.)"

yet you say again:

"The stereotype to which Stronach has chosen to conform includes airheadedness. It's a complete package. Certainly it's not wise to judge someone who is born blonde, rosy-cheeked and skinny to be an airhead -- but someone who chooses to be blonde, to disguise a countenance that is pleasant and agreeable enough with paint to make it appear "beautiful", and ... well, maybe she actually eats pizza ... that one has made her own bed."

which reads to me you ARE "actually saying that Stronach has actually done this;"

[iverglas]

24. is there some way that you could possibly think

that I was "honestly" trying to say that those comments were, in no way, connected to Belinda????

Stephen Harper on a stick, what/who else could you possibly have thought they were connected to?

What I was trying to say, and what I thought I said quite clearly, was that my statement that my opinion might not be really worthwhile was not connected to my opinion about women who transform themselves into Barbie dolls.

That is -- that you had taken my statement that my opinion might not be really worthwhile, divorced it from the opinion that I was stating to which it related -- that Belinda Stronach looks like an idiot to me -- and acted as if it had something to do with my opinion about women who transform themselves into Barbie dolls.

Obviously, Stronach has transformed herself into a Barbie doll. Obviously, my opinion about women who do that applies to Belinda Stronach.

However, the fact that a woman has transformed herself into a Barbie doll is not conclusive evidence that she is an idiot; viz. Ann Coulter. And I did not offer the fact that Stronach has transformed herself into a Barbie doll as evidence that she is an idiot -- the assertion to which my comment that my opinion might not really be worthwhile applied.


which reads to me you ARE "actually saying that Stronach has actually done this;"

And quelle surprise -- I AM actually saying that (i.e. that Stronach has transformed herself into a Barbie doll for her own advantage). I said it again just above.

However, since, as I said, I don't have access to Stronach's IQ scores and I have not been witness to her performance in other roles in life, I cannot conclusively say that she is an idiot. I don't think she's an Ann Coulter. (Well, not that I'm persuaded that Coulter is a brainiac either, and in fact I think it's pretty obvious that she's a pretty good example of someone using conformity to a stereotype to remedy obvious deficiencies in the skills, ability and knowledge she would otherwise need in order to get ahead.) I think Stronach's an idiot, based on what I have seen of her.

I have no evidence that she is sufficiently intelligent to be entrusted with major decisions that affect my life and my country. She inherited a nasty big corporation, and as a result of her wealth and resulting power -- and her stereotpyical, phoney appearance -- she has access to opportunities that other people can access only by being skilled, smart and knowledgeable.

Her "accomplishments" are NO evidence that she is skilled, smart and knowledgeable. They ARE evidence of what money, plus a bottle of bleach and some face paint, can buy -- given how we already know, from long general experience, that those things can buy the opportunities that she's had.

If there actually IS some evidence that she is skilled, smart and knowledgeable, evidence that would counter my suggestion that she is merely rich, artificially attractive and well-connected, I'd be delighted to hear it.

If you ain't got any to offer, all we've got is your opinion that my comments in this regard are "baseless" and "offensive" and my opinion not "worthwhile".

And that ain't debate, or discussion, or anything else worthwhile. If you think my opinion is baseless, demonstrate the absence of base. If you think it's offensive, offer some reason. If you think it's not worthwhile, well, feel free.


But could we at least start being a little more coherent, and paying a little more attention?

You quote me as saying this:

"The opinion that you quoted was my opinion about people who do certain things and then are heard to object to being judged according to the standards that they themselves have plainly adopted. (And I didn't actually say that Stronach had actually done this; it has been third parties making the objections and I don't see them as having any basis for doing so on her behalf -- let alone on my behalf, or women's in general, or anyone else's.)"

and then say:

which reads to me you ARE "actually saying that Stronach has actually done this;

Do you know that "this" is??

"This" -- I didn't actually say that Stronach had actually done this -- was: be "heard to object to being judged according to the standards that they themselves have plainly adopted".

Stronach has not been heard to object etc. etc., as far as I know. The objections have come from third parties. I was attempting to head off a tangential herring accusing me of saying that Stronach had objected to something or other being said about her. I thought that my saying:

I didn't actually say that Stronach had actually done this; it has been third parties making the objections

made that rather limpidly clear. All one sentence; "this" referred to being heard to object, making objections.

Stronach plainly HAS chosen to conform to a certain stereotype, in order to advance her own interests and to remedy what I think are obvious deficiencies in the things that one normally needs in order to do that: skills, smarts and knowledge. Sez I. Without any demonstration that I am wrong, to date.

I have NOT heard Stronach, personally, voicing loud objections to being judged based on her conformity to that stereotype. To my knowledge. And entirely tangentially to any issue I'm aware of.

[HEyHEY]

10. Some of it has been,

But I don't agree with them twisting the phrase "WHoring yourself out" as that is EXACTLY what would be used to describe any MP in that situation

[Spazito]

12. I agree with you in regards to the "whored herself out for power."

comment, it has been used generically to describe politicians of both genders. When I googled it, Tom Delay's name kept coming up, rofl.

[V. Kid]

13. Sort of but...

...the visceral reactions from the Conservatives were dispicable and quite unbecoming of a party that thinks it's ready to govern. Clearly the "whoring" comment is just icing on the cake compared to the rest of the reactions (and yeah lots of politicians do it), that makes the Conservatives look like neanderthals.

[Spazito]

14. Don't disagree there, it is an amalgam of the comments that

shows clearly they have not moved far from where they were with the Reform party and their reputation for being sexist and racist.

[V. Kid]

20. Yeah and one of the guys, Tony Abbot...

...called her some really nasty things, that are completely un-becoming of a man who claims to be an evangelical minister! It's embaressing for an alleged Christian such as himself to act in such a manner.

[u4ic]

28. Well his boss is quite the whore...

political (crossed floor to Cons) and corporate. ;)

[HEyHEY]

17. I can understand them being pissed - but yeah Name-calling?

Like seriously, that's not how elected officials should behave.

Oh well, it's to our benefit... they are sure to lose votes over this whole thing.

Had they waited until the end of gomery, they maybe woulda had a chance.

[V. Kid]

19. It's funny...

..the way the Conservatives are reacting, they seem to be like a freight train heading towards a wall. So much could change, but if they act like the "angry old white men" that Rick Bell of the Calgary Sun said they are, they're going to run strait into the ground. :-)

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Calgary/Rick_Bell/2005/05/18/1044488.html

This is the link btw.

[HEyHEY]

25. HA

He's right, it seems the Cons try so hard to be hip and never are because it's all so transparent. There is nothing hip about conservative politics - that's their problem.

Remember stockwell on the jet ski and when Preston Manning began wearing turtle-necks instead of ties?! Such a joke

[HEyHEY]

26. Notice Rona Ambrose is in Stronach's old seat?

They needed a good looking woman and they needed one fast!

[V. Kid]

27. Heh, yeah I noticed your other thread....

...and in all honesty watching Stephen Harper lick an Ice Cream cone doesn't make him more warm and fuzzy to me.

[applegrove]

16. Churchill crossed the floor. Twice! n/t

[Swede]

18. She was called a stupid whore.

No matter how you dance around it,and by more then one of them.