Print This Post
May
23
Types like she laughs: I never thought about it this way before, but John Ettorre just left a very interesting and unique (because I’d yet to see the argument made nor had it ever occurred to me before now) comment on this thread with Ellen Bravo’s ten reasons why women should vote for Obama if he is the candidate.
Writes John:
And reason #11: he’s a metrosexual, with all the effeminate qualities that entails. They’re off-putting to many males (me included), and I predict it will be among the leading reasons for sinking his chances in the general election. [emphasis added]
This kind of idea is very far afield to me because I really don’t view people in those terms, or at least, I don’t think about metrosexuals at all.
I can’t remember seeing a microtargeting category of metrosexuals but here’s what you can find on Google if you put in “metrosexual Obama.” Results in the “news” search are here. I don’t have time to go through many of them, so let me just link to a couple:
This letter to the editor, in Maine, goes right to the military comparison and is not complimentary to Obama.
But this article in U.S. News & World Report takes the position that Obama is more of a woman than Clinton and that that implies that women will not lose if Obama is the nominee (fun note: that article was written on 2/13/08 and says that the race was Obama’s to lose, then).
This just gets too wrapped up in genderizing the qualities that go with being a leader and again, being short on time, I’ll leave the comments as a place for people to explore whether we are evolved enough to realize that we should be selecting our leaders based on those qualities, and not by saying things like “he’s more a woman than Clinton” or “McCain is more of a manly man.” What is that supposed to do for us? Some people identify women’s qualities as not being ones akin to leadership, others go the opposite direction. And manly men in the way people refer to someone like McCain totally turn me off. Feh.
Anyway – manly men or metrosexuals? What do people think?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:21 am May 23rd, 2008 in Barack Obama, Gender, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Media, Politics, Voting, Women
Comments
79 Responses to “Metrosexuals versus manly men: a reason voters will prefer McCain to Obama?”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
Actually, one high-profile person has been returning to this theme often, though not using the metrosexual term specifically (though she might have once). Maureen Dowd has been bashing him continuously as being rather less than manly, in her signature loopy fashion. If anyone can build sympathy for him, it’s her and her over-the-top criticisms that often feel more like schoolyard insults than anything. Anyway, that may well have at least helped plant that notion in my head. But it would probably be there anyway, though in less fully articulated fashion. Either way, I KNOW that same reaction resides deep in the unreconstructed lizard brains of millions of American males, who would no sooner pull the lever for a metrosexual in the Oval Office than they would for a convicted felon. It might not be right or fair, but it’s reality, and he’ll be forced to deal with it.
Hmm. Fascinating.
Have I ever mentioned that I hate labels?
You might be interested to follow the comments that get posted here too John at The Moderate Voice (which is fed up to Newsweek.com).
Sure, all thinking people resist labels and labeling, me included. But what I’m suggesting is that nice neat reactions such as those are only what’s going on at a conscious level. But voting for president includes lots of other levels, which we ignore at our own peril. A few days ago, I posted an article from Scientific American about our deeply embedded racial biases. They exist, even in the most ostensibly enlightened individuals, so I figure it’s counterproductive to pretend otherwise. Better that we should face up to them (racial, gender, whatever) in ourselves, and try to adjust accordingly.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=buried-prejudice-the-bigot-in-your-brain&print=true
Wow. Talk about a “Cavuto trick“!
Fascinating indeed. Stimulating conversation stuff. Just lovely. Do tell. What do you think? I don’t know that I agree, but this is out there. Let me know what you think. This is not something I would ever subscribe to, but let’s talk about this. Shall we?
Eric – you are so jaded and obsessed with love for Obama when you’ve known me far longer that you can’t even see how this post is generated by the fact that someone else left a comment that was absolutely never anything I would ever have thought of.
But rather than just leave a comment that says, Jill – this is garbage and here’s why, you decide to accuse me of something done by someone I don’t even KNOW who he is except because Media Matters complains about him.
Have you really no sixth sense left about anything but rather all you do is pre-planned based on how it will help Obama?
For goodness sakes, Eric, CALM DOWN and just READ once in a while.
Isn’t that what you would tell me to do?
Sheesh.
This is not merely “out there,” Eric, but more importantly, “in there,” in the brains of millions of voters, is what I’m suggesting. And only a horse’s ass would want to pretend otherwise. I don’t know you, have never met you, and have only scanned your blog a couple times, so I can’t really say if you qualify as the aforementioned horse’s ass or not. But I do know that blind love of a candidate (which Obama inspires more than most) can leave one unable to see things as they really are. That, too, will contribute mightily to his loss in the general election, I predict.
You decided to elevate it from offensive comment to blog post, Jill. Please take responsibility for it. You could have left it there but you didn’t. I’m accusing you of doing that for a reason, yes. If I post a comment that says Hillary can’t win because too many men see her as a bitch would you make that a blog post?
Your title is clearly passive aggressive anti-Obama: “Metrosexuals versus manly men: a reason voters will prefer McCain to Obama?”
It is fascinating though. Thought provoking. Stimulating in it’s ability to provoke deep dialog on your blog.
Is Obama not really a man? Is he too gay acting? Might he be bisexual? Does he hold his cigarette the wrong way? Can he be a powerful leader if he likes to dress too nice and enjoys antiques? Enquiring minds want to know!
Let’s discuss and not get so wound up over these label things. It’s fascinating. Keep the dialog going everyone.
Let me know what you think.
Real manly men don’t bowl a 35.
@6: don’t know you either john. starting to not want to. anyone who labels someone in the way you have and then claims effeminate qualities in male is “off-putting” is fine to be kept at a distance from me.
there’s nothing blind about my preference in candidate. nothing false about my hope, either.
I don’t merely “claim” it’s off-putting to me–it is. Each of us can make our own determination on that, of course. But I think it’s pretty clear as a matter of easily observable fact that tens of millions of American males join me in that camp, including (unfortunately) plenty of those I’d place in the Cro-Magnon variety.
john ettore is off-putting. trust me, eric, you don’t want to know him. nice to know another of the many cro-magnon camps he is happy to reside in.
Could someone please provide examples of these “effeminate qualities” that are so off-putting?
His fingernails are clean?
He’s polite and doesn’t have a horrible temper?
What?
You’re right, Joseph. The truth is, he really doesn’t rate very highly on any of those scales, objectively speaking (but then, this is a thoroughly subjective kind of ranking) and as someone on Jill’s other blog (to which she also posted this) observed this morning, he wouldn’t remotely qualify as a metrosexual by the normal definitions that have been used for that term. Maybe I just plain don’t like him, find him arrogant and presumptuous (that he’s qualified to be president with his absurdly thin resume) and I’m merely using this as a post-hoc rationalization. Entirely possible. Maybe there’s a sliver (or maybe more than a sliver) of unconscious racial bias thrown in too, which was my reason for posting that piece from a science journal on my blog the other day. Also entirely possible. But the important point is this: if someone like me, who articulates vague feelings for a living, can’t put their finger on all of the impulses that drive their presidential preferences, you know that millions of considerably less introspective people can’t either.
I’m with Joseph. John, would you care to list exactly why Obama gives you the willies in this regard? I think it’s necessary for the conversation to continue.
No, you’re both right. On any objective ranking of the scale ordinarily used for this stuff, he wouldn’t qualify as much of a metrosexual in any objective ranking. But then, this is an utterly subjective kind of thing. I went into more detail about this in an earlier attempt at posting a comment here, but it unfortunately got lost in a technical glitch, and I’m afraid I need to get back to a couple of dealines today. I’ll monitor this conversation if it continues, and try to weigh in later.
Glad they finally did post, even if the second one might be a little confusing. And Keith, when will the Bad American re-debut? Soon, I hope.
so now john ettore tells us he is in the racist cro-magnon camp too. thanks for the heads up john.
But he said it so politely, Tim. I bet he also has really clean fingernails.
Not polite, just honest. Serious writers & thinkers try to delve into reality and the world as they find it in all its shades of gray, however non-PC that might be. Those with less subtle minds use only the intellectual sledgehammer available to them. Each to his/her own.
thank god racists have such clean fingernails and are such serious writers and thinkers. if only racists weren’t so smart.
It would seem I’ve hit a nerve among the criminal element.
Eric wrote:
“You decided to elevate it from offensive comment to blog post, Jill. Please take responsibility for it. You could have left it there but you didn’t. I’m accusing you of doing that for a reason, yes. If I post a comment that says Hillary can’t win because too many men see her as a bitch would you make that a blog post?”
So noted.
Now be a blogger about it and go read what the people over here have to say to flesh out the problem with John’s assertion. None of them have even met me like you have and they can see that giving a variety of perspectives and looking more deeply at what John wrote – no matter how nutty etc. you think it is – should be at least picked apart with some thought rather than crying how evil it was.
That’s what the blogs are for, except when they’re made to be perverse by accusations like yours.
Jill, I was really impressed at the quality of thought and expression among the commenters on Moderate Voice. I’ve somehow never followed your links to read that blog until today, but will now make a point to visit occasionally. Great stuff.
I’m still waiting to find out what these “effeminate qualities” are- and why they are so off-putting.
You didn’t really answer the question, John.
If these “qualities” really are “the leading reasons for sinking his chances in the general election” – we should be able to identify one or two of them.
I think it’s especially relevent since, one assumes, these qualities are the same qualities any female candidate would also possess.
Thanks, John.
For the record, I don’t see Obama as a metrosexual but that might be in part because I don’t know what the hell it really means and as you can see from the TMV post, people have varying definitions.
The bottom line for me obviously is that it’s just not even in my memory bank or a consideration at any level when considering leaders.
<a href=”http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display?book=9781586484255″ rel=”nofollow”>Drew Westen’s work The Political Brain</a> really says it all about why your comment matters – even if we could all agree that your assertion is a reprehensible fact of life – the way people say they won’t vote for a woman, a black or a Jew.
From that link about Westen’s book:
“In politics, when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins. Elections are decided in the marketplace of emotions, a marketplace filled with values, images, analogies, moral sentiments, and moving oratory, in which logic plays only a supporting role. Westen shows, through a whistle-stop journey through the evolution of the passionate brain and a bravura tour through fifty years of American presidential and national elections, why campaigns succeed and fail. The evidence is overwhelming that three things determine how people vote, in this order: their feelings toward the parties and their principles, their feelings toward the candidates, and, if they haven’t decided by then, their feelings toward the candidates’ policy positions.”
So – that’s why I made a post out of it. Most people who read this blog and TMV obviously get that.
Okay, here are a couple that struck me: the reference to aragula (I don’t know any guys who could even tell you what the hell that is, let alone use it as a reference point in a campaign). If that was scripted in by some tragically misguided aide rather than something that bizarrely occurred to him off the cuff, well, then, he should have recognized how tone deaf it would sound.
Also, the fact that he came away looking pretty whipped by putting up with a wife who publicly (at least initially) went into great and emasculating detail about how unheroic he is in real life. And then there’s that seemingly extreme, even prissy, aversion to eating any of the common things candidates would ordinarily eat to signal to voters that they’re regular people. Just a few things that hit me.
Re-debut? It’s never went away. Ohhhhhhhh – the website url is wrong here – just saw that. Corrected.
Unlike Eric, I think it’s a valid topic Jill.
Mainly because it plays into the topic of sexism directed at Hillary that we’ve been all been talking about lately.
In short: if it’s ok to dislike a male candidate because he has female characteristics one could easily argue that it’s ok to dislike Hillary or any female candidate because she has certain characteristics that are traditionally considered male.
It’s sexist either way.
By the way: I love aragula! With goat cheese and a some walnuts it makes a great salad.
Thanks, I did subsequently figure that out.
Thanks, Joseph. I made it very very very clear in the beginning of the post re: where I was coming from. Not sure how anyone could mistake it unless they were dead set on doing so.
Yeah – I agree – and that’s been a huge problem with male voters and Hillary – I’m sure that’s part of why some men and maybe even some or many women don’t like her – frankly, it’s one of the things I’ve said about her when I’ve written, long before this year, about how I just do not like her. Nothing has changed – in fact, when she had her “moment” in NH – I said that I felt relieved for sure – the first time anyway – I still feel that moment as being very very real.
But she is not a mold woman – and she is out there that way herself and I’m sure that it penalizes her with certain groups.
John Ettorre flipped that.
John:
To use a common greeting these days, you know I love you (or is that an unmanly greeting?) but this is crap. Honestly, you won’t vote for a guy who knows what arugula is? Is that the limit? What about radicchio? Is Belgian endive sufficiently mainstream?
(By the way, arugula has a peppery sharpness that makes it among the most masculine salad greens I can think of. Iceberg lettuce by comparison is strictly for pussies.)
As for how he fails to put his bitch, er wife, in her place, I’ll leave you to Jill’s wrath on that one. I’d just say that Obama respecting the fact Michelle has some spark impresses me a lot more than McCain standing next to that rich grinning blond mannequin. From experience, it takes a lot more strength to be married to a strong woman.
Pho – bingo:
“I’d just say that Obama respecting the fact Michelle has some spark impresses me a lot more than McCain standing next to that rich grinning blond mannequin. From experience, it takes a lot more strength to be married to a strong woman.”
Oh my. I know it’s a cheese. My ex really loved the stuff. But that’s the only reason I knew, I swear!!
See, here’s the thing – is that metrosexuality or elitism (in the way it’s perceived)? I don’t think it’s either – I just think his taste, so to speak, may be a bit elevated from the mainstream. But why is this bad? How many business execs travel in the same manner with clothes, food and speech and no one thinks they’re effeminate?
OK, they’re not running for POTUS. But where did we get to a point in this country that having a decent sense of taste is somehow a negative?
And what if we had a candidate that was truly a ‘man (or woman) of the people in every sense. They would come across as Dan from “Roseanne” and no one would vote for the rube.
What a tightrope – can’t be too upper class in your taste or too plebeian.
What a country.
Pho/Scott,
I hear and even mostly agree with everything you’ve said. And it means a whole lot more coming from you than from most anyone else. Part of the beauty of blogs, and of writing generally, is that you get to explore ideas and see what they look like when you’re putting them out there. I happen to come from the tradition that says I don’t really know what I think until I find the words to express it all through writing. So I’m mostly thinking out loud in this thread, though in a deliberative fashion. And having people then comment on it all in real time makes it that much more interesting, and (I hope) revealing.
Having said all that, I think you may partly be missing the fact that what I’m also doing is exploring in myself (and by extension in other similarly placed folks) the more subtle, usually unexpressed, often subconscious biases that I think we all have, though of course in differing degrees. I just happen to have a thick enough hide to not only put up with but welcome the abuse that comes along with that honesty. When we go into the voting booth, all of those biases and mental tics, however irrational, play themselves out.
And for the record, I happen to know plenty about strong women, because I’ve been married to one for over 20 years. But I also think she would refrain from opening me up to public humiliation in front of millions. And if she didn’t I’d take the appropriate action (like possibly saying sayonara, baby). I don’t think the choices are confined to Mrs. Obama on one extreme or Mrs. McCain on the other. Mrs. Edwards is a wonderful example of someone who both speaks her mind often and well but who also honors her marriage partner. They’re not remotely mutually exlusive. To me, Michelle is an acquire taste which I’m not likely to aquire. Rather like arugula, perhaps.
PS: I meant to stipulate that the ridiculous arugula thing goes more to the class thing than gender. In fact, it doesn’t really speak to gender at all. To me, it’s at least slightly reminiscent of Bush 41 being baffled by the supermarket scanner. But then, he had been in the White House bubble for some years. What’s Obama’s excuse?
Excuse? Excuse for liking arugula? Sounds like someone who has been to the grocery store and like someone who knows how to make healthy meals for his family. Doesn’t sound like an elitist to me. I grow arugula in my vegetable garden, right next to the collard greens. (And I eat both, but not at the same time.)
As someone who is married to a man in the music business and having been around a lot of his clients, Obama is not my idea of metrosexual at all. And, yes, he has sex appeal, but what damn difference does it make? And, yes, Hillary looks good in her pant suits and is a strong person. What damn difference does it make? I look at their policies to decide who I am voting for, not appearance or perceived appearance.
As someone who became a trial lawyer 29 years ago, when there weren’t a lot of women in that field, I know open sexism and subtle sexism. Hillary has been faced with subtle sexism, for sure. Open sexism began during the McCain campaign when the woman in the crowd asked what he was going to do about the “bitch.” McCain laughed. And now Barack is faced with subtle anti-elitism or whatever you want to call it. And there are viral emails out there that are certainly not subtle.
As someone who grew up very poor, maybe even poorer than Barack did in a single parent home, I’m pretty glad that I have the intelligence to look at the world around me and figure out what the hell arugula is. Big deal.
A female friend in California who is a die hard Clinton supporter sent me what I thought was a very well-reasoned message about the sexism in this campaign, until I noticed her subtle remark about Obama’s Muslim friends from Indonesia. I told her the entire message suffered because of that. Come on. Let’s be reasonable. Let’s not stoop to dirty tricks.
McCain sought Hagee’s endorsement for over a year. He sought Parsley’s endorsement. That’s important. What style his underwear is, is not.
You make a lot of interesting points, Muffet. And I didn’t mean what’s his excuse for liking it, but rather for not realizing that most people have no idea what the hell it is. It suggests he may be in a bubble about what average Americans think and do, just as his comment that people resort to faith as a pathetic coping mechanism.
Good Lord. I guess we can at least be grateful he didn’t say “frisee.”
Let’s put the arugula in context. Obama was speaking in front of a group of farmers. The arugula remark was in response to the observation that farmers aren’t getting better prices for crops despite the fact that retail food prices were increasing. In context it was meant as a joke, as a joke it works better if you choose a farm-grown commodity that is generally overpriced. As jokes sometimes do, it bombed. So Obama went on. If there was a big problem with the line it would be that joking in response to the question was borderline inappropriate.
The thing got wheels mostly because Glennnn Beccckkkk sent out a newsletter claiming that arugula isn’t grown in the the state of Iowa, which would be a great dig were it not for the fact that Iowa actually grows quite a bit of arugula.
In any event, Obama was talking about arugula in front of people who know their way around fresh produce.
Links:
Media Matters on Becccckkkkkkk:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200708280009
NY Times on the farm speech:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/obamas-down-on-the-farm/
Also, whatever you are trying to do will go better if you don’t inflate Obama’s missteps. The “Bitter Midwesterners” talk was undoubtedly his worst moment of the campaign, but he never said “pathetic” and I doubt think you can tease “pathetic” out of the context.
Finally, any candidate will make unfortunate statements on the trail. None of Obama’s unfortunate statements have advocated bombing a sovereign nation.
Manly, yes. But I don’t like it.
Pho wrote, “Manly, yes. But I don’t like it.”
Which is what I wrote in the post: “And manly men in the way people refer to someone like McCain totally turn me off. Feh.”
Keith, to your point in #33: I think it’s wonderful that he has elevated tastes. I’d be the last person to criticize anyone for that, or at least among the last. All I’m saying is that if he wants to be president (and Obama fans seem to forget that the burden of proof is on him or anyone who wants that job to explain why they’re right for it) he’s going to have to understand that his tastes aren’t necessarily those of the great majority of his fellow citizens.
Here’s a parallel. Let’s say that I love and steep myself in the New York Review of Books. It’s a good for instance, because it happens to be true. And then let’s say that I go out and give a paid speech in which I presume that my entire audience also loves it, and have all read various articles that have appeared in its pages recently. That would be a silly assumption, and would suggest I’m out of touch with most people’s habits and preferences. Would that make me a bad person? Not remotely. But it might make me a bad speaker, or teacher, or leader, depending on the context. Or at least a less than proficient one.
Thus exhausts my appetite for this subject today, as we begin a holiday weekend. Enjoy the holiday, everyone. I’ve enjoyed trading ideas about this topic, and thanks to Jill for helping to spark it.
Ironic that I post a great and fantastically well-done list of 10 reasons why women should support Obama, written by a woman for whom I have enormous respect, one person makes one comment that is controversial and contradictory, on its face, I move it to its own post and here’s this thread.
Needless to say, the Clinton Supporters Count Too threads are nearly dormant.
Metrosexual?? This is to laugh – a lot. I have spent nearly 2 hours within 12 feet of the man, amply close enough to see him in real detail. So, to validate my “chops” as a manly man – I am a construction contractor who works the same work my employees do – framing, roofing, siding; I have been a hotshot firefighter; I hunt big game in big mountains; I build and drive a drag racer; I’m 55, 5-10, 150#, and I eat exactly what I want and lots of it. Very few even want to try to keep up with me. Sufficient?
Obama’s build is similar to mine, though I’m considerably more “hard bodied” and he makes an expensive suit look good. I make a cheap suit look good and wear one a dozen or so times a year, it has nothing to do with my work. Obama is a lawyer and US Senator and appears on TV so a good look is…what?
There are some two dollar words for this metrosexual theme, what they mean is you engage in bullshit to validate your bullshit. I won’t dignify garbage with fancy words, bullshit works more accurately unless I’m trying a socio-psychological treatist. If you want to try to manufacture a rationale for an unreasoned opposition to a person, that’s your business, right up until you foist it on us.
My wife puts up with no crap from me and isn’t shy about who knows it. I happen to like strong willed women, that is at least partly due needing that in a woman who has to deal with me on a regular basis. I recognize Michelle and I like it and it means he’s used to dealing with it. I try to be respectful of people, but the simple truth is that in a day in day out relationship with a weak willed person I will eventually bulldoze them – without meaning to. It would never occur to me to do it, but if I referred to my wife like McCain has his, I’d get my face publicly slapped, verbally at least.
A strong man recognizes two things: 1) when he is wrong 2) that some things are not worth conflict. You want to talk about metrosexual, most of what I do on a regular basis would scare you spitless and what Obama is doing and how he’s handling it would scare your poor little self spitless. Your language, word choices, sentence construction, and theme all make that clear, however you dress and gesture. Like it in return?
If being a “manly man” means being eager to deny women the ability to control their own bodies, I don’t want one.
There’s only one huge difference which you’re not remembering, pal: I’m not choosing to run for prez. So he’s just going to have to get used to taking the brunt of all the criticism, warranted and unwarranted. And find someone else to arm wrestle with. I do it with my brain, not my brawn.
jill, when will you bring this to a stop? i’ve asked you repeatedly in email threads, on my blog, and you will not respond. when will you exert some leadership on your own blog to stop this level of “discourse”?
we now have had hillary claim she’s staying in the race in case barack obama is assassinated. will you wait to step in here until john ettorre claims how reasonable it is to think barack obama may be assassinated in june? is that what you’re waiting for?
this blog is your space jill, you write the rules, and you let this continue. when will you step in?
Obama is black and at least 8 inches taller than McCain, and this guy worries that he’s going to come across as not masculine enough? Where do these people come from and who taught them how to get online?
Let’s face it, this is all part of a decades-old strategy. There’s never been a Democratic candidate for president in my memory who wasn’t called effeminate, and it’s not a coincidence that Hillary has often been termed masculine in an unflattering way, or accused of lesbianism. It’s just what the far right does. If Jim Webb winds up on the ticket, I’m sure Ann Coulter and her wannabes will still find a way to label him similarly. We have a prep school cheerleader currently sitting in the Oval Office, but his masculinity is a given to our media because he’s a R and not a D.
Just silly all around.
Obama is a manly man. I’d have a Bud and a slab of ribs with him any day. I bet he likes the sauce hot. They tried to make Kerry into some kind of sissy, too. He served in Vietnam, shot and killed a VC, and was in a scary area of that country. But they nailed him for windsurfing. Obama better be ready for the metrosexual stuff. I hope he owns a Harley and has a license in his wallet. Years ago, there was a campaign in the South where a senator (the late Claude Pepper, I believe) lost his seat after being portayed as a “thespian” who practiced “nepotism” on his wife and children. Few knew what all that meant, but it sounded like the senator was some kind of perrvert. Imagine what they’ll think when they hear the word metrosexual . . .
The only thing I remember about Claude Pepper was that he served until he was really old, didn’t he?
Jill,
you should be ashamed of yourself for posting a comment from this raging small penis blogtard that is beyond the usual ettesnore snobbery as if it’s funny or interesting – it’s not. IT IS SERIOUS BAD TASTE. It’s not interesting and just makes a case for people that bloggers really ARE spouting morons filled with themselves. Case in point, mr i-will-write-a-paragraph-in-response-attacking-you -personally-ettesnore, it’s always great to watch you get crispy in the friar grease of you own fast food hate disguised as ” creative writing ” – is that really working with words ?
really Jill – a new low here – i hope your enjoying the horrified blog traffic
What a MENCH – did i spell that right ?
Hey Bridget – thanks for commenting.
Mensch – but I knew what you meant.
Just imagine if I hadn’t posted John’s comment as a post: no one would be able to give him a lashing. Vessels knows I’m terrible with sarcasm, but to be honest, I was praying that people would do exactly what they’ve done – which is to say, “you’re kidding, right?”
So, John has now been able to see that Obama’s traits that bug John don’t bug others. I do think he’s right about the emotion behind what he’s claiming – I think it’s as subtle as sexism can be or racism for that matter.
But, IMO, I just don’t see this kind of concern sticking. The only issue will be how Obama looks compared to McCain, depending on how kooky McCain’s campaign gets with the military stuff – that could get pretty nutty – but then who wouldn’t look less strong next to a guy who survived the torture McCain did?
Thing is – that’s just not he standard for most people. Hopefully, John sees that and maybe he’ll re-consider his hypothesis.
Hey pal, your brain isn’t up to your brawn either.
This guy is one of the most poised and confident people I’ve seen up close and that includes Bill Clinton. GWB’s school yard version of manliness is laughable, there is a complete difference between a pose and poise. As little use as I have for Hillary, I’d trust her with the chips down before GWB or his McClone.
You set the measure up, I stated my qualifications and I doubted yours. I still do and it’s got nothing to do with an arm wrestling contest. My nerve and fine judgement have been called into play many times where failure had drastic consequences. I didn’t ask you to arm wrestle pal, I mentioned your intellectual endeavor as a measure. If you want to try some intellectual arm wrestling you’re welcome to try me out on my site; pick the topic – not surgery techniques if you don’t mind – and we’ll have it out in front of god and everybody. Bring all your tools though, it has to be interesting.
I’ll state it again, anybody can make up rationales for unreasoned decisions and the smarter they are the more involved the rationales and the more convinced they are they’ve got something. It isn’t a real problem to pick apart the rationale, knowing what is under it is a different story. That’s the game involved in rationalizations, the argument isn’t what is stated, it’s about the unstated.
Jill, its kind of mean to set somebody up for an ass-kicking, let rough necks like me do it, and then pet him on the head…
Just teasing
Your last posted as I hit “post”
Sloat:
It was Pepper in one of his early races in a poor and (then) mostly illiterate part of Northern Florida. The “attack” as I remember it from the remembrances when he passed was that he was a “shameless extrovert” who before marriage practiced “celibacy.”
I can’t understand how someone as clever as John came up with this fluffy post!!
I would think that we all could agree that GWB projected the endearing image of the regular guy, great to have Texas BBQ and a long neck beer with, what a stud! Wearing his tight jeans and cowboy hat on his ranch and a sexy flight suit whenever possible…what a man!
To me he is nothing but a Mama’s boy, there is nothing inspiring about that clown and if his name was not Bush, he would not be part of the conversation. As it turns out, he will be remember as the worst Prez ever.
I like Hillary. I like her intelligence, her guts and the fact that she showed a lot of patience. However she also is not thinking out of the box, very traditional in my view. We have huge problems and thinking conventionally will not fix the problems. Do I see her as a good politician? I do not live in NY and to me compared to the kind of work that Paul Wellstone did as a liberal, she falls short. She is the wifey in my book. Do you know how easy it is to close one’s eyes to a spouse’s bad behavior to maintain the comfort of one’s home?
Michele Obama would never put up with a philandering hubby and I bet that most strong women feel the same way. I think that Obama is very caring about people but he has an edge and I like that.
I want to address the whole gay thing here, it has no place among educated thinkers. I have had some incredibly close friendships with people and some of them were gay. I can’t believe that we are so worry about our identity that should be an issue.
I love Americans but sometimes you confuse me with the whole gay, God and Guns thing. You seem carried away by eugenic spirits.
I think the most beautiful word is Mensh- it is not about being a person, it is about being a deeply caring human being. I think Obama is a mensch.
Hi Chuck – oh – no I didn’t mean it like that – it’s kind of an inside thing to some extent.
John is a very well-read very often published writer whom I’ve known for a few years. He has been very supportive at many times but he and I do often see things differently.
Now – John can of course come here to say that I’m wrong about this, but I’m pretty sure he was aware that his #11 would be provocative, in part because the Ohio ’sphere is pretty much a pro-Obama place.
So – it can’t have been a total surprise to John that he’d get some reaction – he has after all been blogging longer than me – reading and writing. He has seen it all and more.
If John has said, I know this doesn’t have a thing to do with whether someone actually will be a good leader but people will vote on their emotions related to how manly someone is, I suppose it might have been more…neutral or something. But he used words that pushed buttons for people who know the words.
Whatever – books have been written and referenced over and over that talk about the role of emotion in voting. John raised something connected to emotional voting. That’s why I posted it – and because John is a good sport in going back and forth with those who disagree (I’ve seen him do it endlessly at another blog where I definitely don’t have the patience).
Thanks Daniella – yeah, I don’t get the sexual orientation connection – I really just thought it had to do with how hip someone was – I thought it was supposed to be a cool thing – guess not!
I’m not sure I’d say I get the sense that Obama is a mensch – I don’t think many politicians are menschy though – it’s almost mutually exclusive!
But in case people missed this, here is a great interview that was in the NYT a few months back with Obama’s half-sister, Maya. I’ll put it in a post – I thought it was great.
Jill,
Maya’s interview was great, I think that Obama’s mother and I could have been soul mates. I also allowed my children total freedom to explore religious believes and we lived all over the world.
But to get back to your comment: “I’m not sure I’d say I get the sense that Obama is a mensch – I don’t think many politicians are menschy though – it’s almost mutually exclusive!”
Hum! I would agree with the politician statement but I think that it is easier to be a Mensch among your own people. You see your elderly neighbor struggling with groceries and you assist him/her. You perform an act of kindness for a friend, relative, you don’t have to do it but you do.
I think that when you come upon an individual who is willing to push the envelop so that many can have a better life regardless of personal bonds, that person qualifies as a Mensch.
McCain is a war hero because he survived living in a cage? Is that a hero or is that a person who survived because he was able to reach for his own inner strength. How does that make him a good candidate? He got back to civilian life and marry a few women, the last one very rich, very supportive and quite invisible.
I compare his resume as John likes to call it to a young man, born of an inter-racial union, raised by a single mom in a time where it was not very popular. Deciding to avoid the attractive and enticing appeal of a private law practice to work with a non-profit organization and to go into public service to make a difference to people he does not know personally. Is that not more admirable? Is that not showing deep commitment the kind that would qualify someone as a true Mensch?
You know what, Daniella? You are right. You are absolutely right – I see what you are saying with those examples.
I suppose I’m pretty jaded these days but I don’t have to be. Maybe it’s a Marc Dann hangover or something – maybe it’s Ohio, but probably not.
Maybe – it’s a matter of framing but also looking at what’s inside the frame.
I will think about this, about what you said.
Maybe it’s something that should be added to Ellen Bravo’s list, something along the lines of what you’ve said.
And what really hit me, what resonates, is that I took a very untraditional path with my law education – from the beginning. Was always involved in public interest law and it made me furious when people I knew who did it in law school would give it up for the big buck jobs. I understood in some ways, but in other ways – there were many of us who settled for work that paid so much less, but did, IMO, so much more for people who had nothing or no one.
Hmm
Okay.
Thank you for making me think. I hope you will stop by and do that more often.
Jill,
What you have is very special, great education and an open mind. I’m green with envy. I wish I could go where you can go.
hey Jill
I don’t get around the Ohio blogs much, it has been a very long time since I lived there so I’m not familiar with John’s work. This queer piece doesn’t say much good for him in my eyes.
As for the gay orientation of this post, one thing I do know is that in OR the LGBT considers me a good friend and ally. I have good friends within the DPO LGBT Caucus, people who come to me for support and advice and that despite or because I am such a “manly man.” I am their equal just as I am the equal of women. What we all are, is different.
Chuck – understood re: John, Ohio blogs etc. He’s got some opinions about men and women that I agree to disagree with – I don’t think either of us is going to change the other – but I do appreciate testing it – to see if I’m crazy or not in what I think.
As for this thread and gay – I gotta tell you, I’d swear on a stack of Old Testaments – and I’m still smiling as I type – is this like a known thing? I don’t mind feeling stupid for not knowing but then again, I don’t watch tv, my kids don’t watch American Idol and I didn’t know what a Cavuto trick was.
I do pick and choose what I subject myself to when it comes to media. Maybe I am making a mistake – but time can be so rare – why should I watch stuff that’s going to make my head explode (sorry TOVFM!)?
But being ignorant isn’t anything to be proud of – and I’ve always used this blog to ask stuff other people won’t – guess I really proved that this time, lol.
Anyway – well – I don’t expect to be revisiting this issue during this election but I think we’ve developed the definitive pros and cons of the suggestion!
Thanks for commenting.
I am devastated that Chuck is married. Why are all the good ones taken?
Daniella,
If you’d ever seen my picture on my site you might re-think that if grey and furry aren’t your thing. You never know about taste, though.
Jill,
The gay thing is a sort of undertone to the idea, you know – a male peacock must have issues “that way…”
It’s kind of like gun=penis, hot car=insecurity, blah blah. No need to swear
To qualify Ohio blogs for those who may have not have been around for it, I got acquainted with Jill because “ThinkPress” ran an article about C-PD and bloggers fired or resigned, which I further researched and went off full tilt drawing a thanks from Jill. I am always on Jill’s side in this respect, she is a good writer and she thinks. I can disagree with friends and stay friends.
Ok, it’s not a cheese. I’m still a real man. Keep your salads and give me some red meat on Memorial Day.
Glad to see the conversation has continued to rage in my absence. Daniella, I stand chastened by your lovely way of putting things. You make good points, as always, by leading with your heart, reminding me that head has to be matched by heart. And Pho, thanks for the details on the precise context in which Obama made the arugula comment. That makes sense, and I wasn’t aware of any of that. So I found it persuasive. As for the gay thing, I never brought that up. Others did. They may have read too much into the word “metrosexual,” as if it were simply a synonym for being gay. But that’s not how it’s generally used, and not how I was using it.
And Jill, I can’t say I really knew that the Ohio blogosphere is pro-Obama (not that I’m terribly surprised to learn that, however), because you’re one of the very few Ohio-based politically oriented blogs I ever read, along with Bill Sloat’s. Most of the others I’ve sampled initially seem to be lacking in substance and/or style, and so I gave up. And I can’t say that I’ve ever written anything–either on my own blog, in print, or even in a comment on somebody else’s blog–simply to get a reaction or to be provocative. I write or say it because I think it’s true and needs to be said. And I always welcome the comments in return, however hostile, because they help me test my own ideas in the furnace of others’ minds. Naturally, I pay a lot more attention to the opinions expressed by people I know and/or have come to respect (even if we often disagree) than I do by those offered by strangers. Chuck, for all I know, could well be a volunteer lined up by the Obama camp to prowl political blogs and advertise for his guy. If not, that’s fine too. Anyway, I’ve found it interesting, everyone.
Well, thank you again John for being a good sport. Having seen you in action in person, I don’t know – I’m smiling as I type this – I think you have a pretty good sense of when something you say might elicit some conversation.
But you are a conversationalist, that’s what I think, anyway – so I suppose it’s pretty much as natural to you as my fence-sitting is for me.
Have a good weekend – and don’t hesitate to comment again!
Metro-sexual is another term for being half-a-fag.
Real men will vote for McCain!
Actually Hillary is more of a man than Obama [edited for name-calling; you know better King!
]. For that matter so is his wife Michelle!
Gee John,
Since I seem to have bothered you enough to mention me to Jill, I’ll point out that my name is linked and any doubts on your part were easily informed. Oddly, I’m also on Jill’s side bar.
As usual, a tactful, classy comment Ralph.
I’d argue that “real men” aren’t creeped out by other people’s sexuality.
Chuck – have you checked out some of the newer ones on the sidebar!? It’s only going to get more diverse, I hope.
Thanks, Joseph. An ode to consistency I suppose.
“Metro-sexual is another term for being half-a-fag.”
Um, Jill, do we really need this blatant hate speech on your blog?
I will say that John is correct that this is and will be an issue with people like King who represents a solid chunk of the American electorate. Unfortunately any mouth breather in this country can vote.
My point is that either some day, Americans choose to evolve beyond their own prejudices, hates, greed etc. or we perish as a society. It’s really that simple.
How do we get people to rise above their base natures when they seem so self-satisfied in feeding their inner bigot?
Oh, I guess that makes me an ‘elitist.’
Daniella – I’m single!
I don’t know Bad American – what if had sad “half-a-gay” – sadly, there’s so much name-calling going on, you are right – it’s not easy to police. The last several threads have had something like 300 or more comments total and you know, no one is paying me to do this so I’m trying to keep up.
I don’t think anyone has every put fag in a comment – but I let “penis” go the other day.
The world is nearing its end when WLST let’s penis stand, huh?
Sorry – yeah – I’m hoping the people write junk like that will get bored with my writing and go away. Any chance that will happen?
I happily stand corrected, Chuck. I’ll make a point to read some of your blog. And Jill, that could be the headline for your next post: “Let the Penis Stand.”
Better yet – let someone use it as their blog name. I will not be using that word anymore lol.
I love (in a manly way) Chuck Butcher. Give’em hell Chuck!
As for Metrosexuals:
“When it comes to hair, no one is more bitchy than conservative males.”
– Alex Baldwin as Jack Donaghy on “30 Rock.”
Thanks Jimmy, in a manly way
This thing is still alive??
I love your blog kissy kissy !