Kellyanne Conway Would Be A Feminist Hero If She Were A Democrat

[jamesmiller14]

literally the youngest i could find

Wow I was correct.

 

[Teppodama]

Its called pandering, Sarah Palin like most republicans will pander to the evangelical base.

Do you honestly think Donald Trump is genuinely anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and the such? nope. If you pander to anti-women rights religious nuts, then dont get mad when you are not praised as a champion for feminist causes.

Dont get me wrong, im not saying that Hillary and the left had a higher moral high ground, i mean Hillary supports gulf arabs which are the worst offenders when it comes to women's rights, she also harrassed the women that were victims of Bill's antics.

My point is that you cant simply claim to be pro-something, while associating and defending people that represent everything that its wrong with the topic at hand.

Trump is definitively a fucking pig when it comes to women, trying to lessen the impact of his antics is certainly admirable from a professional point of view, but thats certainly not admirable from a feminist point of view, in fact, it did validated Trump antics by pointing out that being such a mysogynistic pig doesnt bars you from being the president of the USA.

Like a pro-democracy guy praising Castro or Chavez.

I would argue that the very act of negotiating starts with acts of pandering.

Example: I am a politician that wants to get elected because I believe I can make a difference, really do some good. I identify that one of the biggest concerns of the people that I need to vote for me is the issue of jobs. In order to get them to listen I tell them I will bring jobs. If I do not, why would they listen? Why would they vote for me unless they believe I have something to offer that they want? Does that mean I have lied to them? Not if I in fact plan on making the attempt to bring jobs. If I am unable to do so but make the attempt, does that invalidate my statement to them? Does that invalidate the fact that I at least made the attempt to follow through with my promise to bring jobs? What if I manage to get just one job created, what about two? Would I have fulfilled my promise?

Politicians make their promises, and for the most part I believe most attempt to do exactly what they say they will. How successful they are or how they actually fulfill them will always generally not be to the fullest extent that their constituency demand because no one politician or president has ultimate power to do whatever they want in the manner they want to. They have to work with all the myriad infrastructure of government and the personalities found there. Once again, small victories where you can, acceptance of what you can't, acknowledgement of the attempt, continued work to achieve. Victories by degree, by inches, by attrition, by compromise.

Ok, so we have the initial pandering accomplished and people are paying attention. We've made our promises and start to work toward achieving them. Once engaged we realize that we won't in fact be able to do exactly what we said, but we can maybe get at least a portion of it accomplished or at the very least the mechanism for achieving it started. But, it will require the cooperation of another politician who is also representing the interest of their own constituency and their concern is financial reform. So, in order to get his support he requires your support in enabling a financial reform plan. Now, you don't like his financial reform plan and would like to keep what's already on the books, but it's not going cause significant harm to your effort to create jobs and any damage from his plan will be minimal overall. What do you do? Refuse to help him pass his reform plan and give up on your own desire to create jobs or do you accept the defeat, plan on attempting to repealing his reform down the road, and get his needed support for your plan for job creations.

Give and take, small victories punctuated by small losses, more movement forward than movement backward. Slow progress but progress, and more importantly, progress that is contested less actively and with less hostility.

If a lion jumps out of the reeds and attempts to eat you, you will either flee or attempt to kill him. If he walks out of the reeds day after day and does nothing overtly threatening you will eventually let your guard down because he has become familiar, has never shown himself to be a threat to you personally and no one can maintain constant vigilance. So day after day he comes and becomes just another accepted part of your world. He does his thing, you do yours but slowly oh so slowly he encroaches on you. You give up space because his familiarity has shrunk your personal bubble of safety and sense of danger. One day, he's right beside you but still doesn't attack. You even reach out and touch him. This continues for days into weeks and eventually you wonder why you were ever afraid of your friend the lion.

The next day, while standing side by side, he turns and attacks you. He's too close so you can't flee. He's never threatened you so you have no weapon with which to attack or defend yourself with. He eats you. Why now? What did you do?

He always planned to eat you, but 1st he needed to take over your territory. Drive away rival predators, strengthen himself on your game, and wait till you accepted him enough to allow him close enough to attack. You see, you were always the most dangerous rival to his power and dominance, and ultimately, he was always a lion and would do what lions do. He was just more patient than you and willing to secure his new domain, strengthen himself on your resources and lull you into a false sense of peace so you could neither flee nor fight. The victory came slowly, but it came. Piece by piece, inch by inch, day by day because somewhere along the way you stopped acknowledging he was always a lion and would never stop being a threat.

 

[Thunderflash500]

There's this idea that feminists are pro women. It's not the reality of the situation. Just like the idea that liberals embrace diversity. It's not the case. They embrace their brand of diversity, not actual diversity.

 

[panamaican]

I was writing to the 2nd part. As to foundational principles, I would guess then that you believe someone can't manifest portions of an ideal or movement or interpret that movement in their own manner and still legitimately consider themselves supporters?

I'll use an exaggerated example: Catholicism takes a pointedly dim view of homosexuality, and yet there are homosexuals that practice Catholicism up to the point of actually forswearing their homosexuality. Because they remain homosexuals does that in fact mean they are not Catholics? If they are stirling examples of Catholic principles up to that point does that mean the example they may present in all other aspects are invalidated?

When I said foundational principles, I mean exactly that. There are far more nuanced parts of every movement where disparate opinions can appear. But the foundational stuff has to have agreement or you're discussing a different core ideology.

Let's take your Catholicism example for a moment. Catholicism takes a dim view on the practice of homosexuality. Which means they don't take a dim view on homosexuals practicing a heterosexual lifestyle within the other tenets of Catholicism. So a homosexual individual who exercises the self-discipline to subjugate his homosexual nature to Catholic mores is in many ways an ideal Catholic. Someone who buries his "sinful" nature to adhere to the word of God.

Swinging back to feminism for a moment, there are certain core principles that I think all feminists must be on board with and if someone defends something that violates one of those core principles then they can't also claim feminism as part of their ideology. Note that I said "defends something that violates." Being aware of something and ignoring it is one thing, defending it by giving reasons that justify the occurence is another.

Let's use racism for a different exaggerated example: If someone sees someone saying something racist and ignores it, there are plenty of reasons to avoid jumping into every race battle that you see. But if someone defends a racist statement, they can't turn around and claim to be anti-racism because being anti-something means you don't find that defensible under any circumstances or for any reason.

The act of proactively defending something that is indefensible under an ideology is what matters and when the indefensible statement refers a foundational principle it's even worse.

You can't defend government interference in the market and then claim that you're a laissez fair capitalist or a libertarian. You can have personal positions that parallel elements of the ideology but you don't agree with the ideology itself as a movement.

 

[Rod1]

I would argue that the very act of negotiating starts with acts of pandering.

Example: I am a politician that wants to get elected because I believe I can make a difference, really do some good. I identify that one of the biggest concerns of the people that I need to vote for me is the issue of jobs. In order to get them to listen I tell them I will bring jobs. If I do not, why would they listen? Why would they vote for me unless they believe I have something to offer that they want? Does that mean I have lied to them? Not if I in fact plan on making the attempt to bring jobs. If I am unable to do so but make the attempt, does that invalidate my statement to them? Does that invalidate the fact that I at least made the attempt to follow through with my promise to bring jobs? What if I manage to get just one job created, what about two? Would I have fulfilled my promise?

Politicians make their promises, and for the most part I believe most attempt to do exactly what they say they will. How successful they are or how they actually fulfill them will always generally not be to the fullest extent that their constituency demand because no one politician or president has ultimate power to do whatever they want in the manner they want to. They have to work with all the myriad infrastructure of government and the personalities found there. Once again, small victories where you can, acceptance of what you can't, acknowledgement of the attempt, continued work to achieve. Victories by degree, by inches, by attrition, by compromise.

Ok, so we have the initial pandering accomplished and people are paying attention. We've made our promises and start to work toward achieving them. Once engaged we realize that we won't in fact be able to do exactly what we said, but we can maybe get at least a portion of it accomplished or at the very least the mechanism for achieving it started. But, it will require the cooperation of another politician who is also representing the interest of their own constituency and their be concern is financial reform. So, in order to get his support he requires your support in enabling a financial reform plan. Now, you don't like his financial reform plan and would like to keep what's already on the books, but it's not going cause significant harm to your effort to create jobs and any damage from his plan will be minimal overall. What do you do? Refuse to help him pass his reform plan and give up on your own desire to create jobs or do you accept the defeat, plan on attempting to repealing his reform down the road, and get his needed support for your plan for job creations.

Give and take, small victories punctuated by small losses, more movement forward than movement backward. Slow progress but progress, and more importantly, progress that is contested less actively and with less hostility.

If a lion jumps out of the reeds and attempts to eat you, you will either flee or attempt to kill him. If he walks out of the reeds day after day and does nothing overtly threatening you will eventually let your guard down because he has become familiar, has never shown himself to be a threat to you personally and no one can maintain constant vigilance. So day after day he comes and becomes just another accepted part of your world. He does his thing, you do yours but slowly oh so slowly he encroaches on you. You give up space because his familiarity has shrunk your personal bubble of safety and sense of danger. One day, he's right beside you but still doesn't attack. You even reach out and touch him. This continues for days into weeks and eventually you wonder why you were ever afraid of your friend the lion.

The next day, while standing side by side, he turns and attacks you. He's too close so you can't flee. He's never threatened you so you have no weapon with which to attack or defend yourself with. He eats you. Why now? What did you do?

He always planned to eat you, but 1st he needed to take over your territory. Drive away rival predators, strengthen himself on your game, and wait till you accepted him enough to allow him close enough to attack. You see, you were always the most dangerous rival to his power and dominance, and ultimately, he was always a lion and would do what lions do. He was just more patient than you and willing to secure his new domain, strengthen himself on your resources and lull you into a false sense of peace so you could neither flee nor fight. The victory came slowly, but it came. Piece by piece, inch by inch, day by day because somewhere along the way you stopped acknowledging he was always a lion and would never stop being a threat.

I dont believe the end justifies the means.

If you need to pander and lie to get elected to make a difference then fuck the electorate, if the republican party cant get elected without pandering to religious and conspiracy nuts then they deserve whatever people call them. Just like the democrats if they are going to pander to the leftist crazies, they deserve to be called upon that.

There is also a big difference between (i dont believe in something, but i concur that some other people believe in such things and i respect them) and (I dont believe in something and thus it should be illegal).

As Pan points out, she went beyond, looking past Trump misogyny, she actively played it down and defended it in order to get her elected. That was her job and that was commendable, but dont turn around and claim that you are pro-something when you work against something.

 

[Rod1]

@panamaican I find it interesting that you are taking the side of the professional devil's advocate, since i think i once had an exchange with you where i questioned how lawyers slept at night while defending people like child molesters.

 

[Teppodama]

Basically, the faster you push change the more opposition you will find to it. People acclimate and adapt, even to unfavorable conditions but only if given enough time to actually become accustomed to it.

Look how much relative progress has been made on civil rights, LBTGQ rights and look how long it took to get to that point. Does everyone like it? No. Do some still oppose it? Yes. Are they no longer the the over all norm? Yes.

No look at the movements for multi-gender designations, safe spaces, increased speech sensorship, globilization, immigration, etc that have exploded in such a relatively small amount of time and how quickly the breakneck push has generated levels of opposition not seen since the civil rights movement of the 50's. The left has reminded the right that when it comes to the concerns and values that the right hold, they're still lions.

 

[Teppodama]

I dont believe the end justifies the means.

If you need to pander and lie to get elected to make a difference then fuck the electorate, if the republican party cant get elected without pandering to religious and conspiracy nuts then they deserve whatever people call them. Just like the democrats if they are going to pander to the leftist crazies, they deserve to be called upon that.

There is also a big difference between (i dont believe in something, but i concur that some other people believe in such things and i respect them) and (I dont believe in something and thus it should be illegal).

As Pan points out, she went beyond, looking past Trump misogyny, she actively played it down and defended it in order to get her elected. That was her job and that was commendable, but dont turn around and claim that you are pro-something when you work against something.

Rod1,

I've actually enjoyed this conversation with you. Unfortunately this is one particular point where I believe we will continue to disagree at least for the foreseeable future. That's fine though. I can still talk with you even if I disagree with you. In fact, if we agreed on everything it really wouldn't be much fun because we'd just be echoing each others thoughts.

 

[Rod1]

Basically, the faster you push change the more opposition you will find to it. People acclimate and adapt, even to unfavorable conditions but only if given enough time to actually become accustomed to it.

Look how much relative progress has been made on civil rights, LBTGQ rights and look how long it took to get to that point. Does everyone like it? No. Do some still oppose it? Yes. Are they no longer the the over all norm? Yes.

No look at the movements for multi-gender designations, safe spaces, increased speech sensorship, globilization, immigration, etc that have exploded in such a relatively small amount of time and how quickly the breakneck push has generated levels of opposition not seen since the civil rights movement of the 50's. The left has reminded the right that when it comes to the concerns and values that the right hold, they're still lions.

Because for the most part these issues are just utter BS.

Immigration and globalization are not new, they are centuries old issues that have always generated pushback.

 

[Teppodama]

I dont believe the end justifies the means.

For me, and I mean this truthfully unlike a number of things I post here, that it depends on what the ends are and what the means will require. At the end of the day I have no problem being ruthlessly pragmatic.

 

[Teppodama]

Because for the most part these issues are just utter BS.

Immigration and globalization are not new, they are centuries old issues that have always generated pushback.

Agreed, immigration and globalization have always been with us. But the rate at which these goals have been pushed, and rate at which the populace has been allowed to acclimate to them, has always been relatively slow. The opposition has allowed the right to sit in the pot of water and adjust to the heat as it slowly comes to a boil. These days though the difference in comparison has been the equivalent of simply throwing them into an already boiling pot.

You can fight the water that is metaphorically killing you or the person that put you in the pot in the 1st place. The Left has been very good for a long time in getting the Right to waste their energy on trying to stop the water from boiling. Now, they've reminded the Right that if you don't want to slowly boil to death maybe you should fight the person putting you in the water in the 1st place.

And for the 1st time in ages the Left has helped arm them with a fire extinguisher and a gun in the form of the Presidency, the Senate and eventually the Supreme Court.

 

[panamaican]

@panamaican I find it interesting that you are taking the side of the professional devil's advocate, since i think i once had an exchange with you where i questioned how lawyers slept at night while defending people like child molesters.

It's not that difficult.

First, plenty of lawyers turn down cases they're not comfortable with.

Second, there are 2 core principles to being a criminal defense lawyer: 1) Everyone is entitled to a defense; 2) Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Third, your job as a lawyer is to advocate for your client, not for yourself. You're supposed to swallow your personal preferences and do what's best for them or what they want (for those occasions when they're not the same thing).

If you can't abide by those principles then you don't do criminal work or any work where you take on clients.

 

[Rod1]

It's not that difficult.

First, plenty of lawyers turn down cases they're not comfortable with.

Second, there are 2 core principles to being a criminal defense lawyer: 1) Everyone is entitled to a defense; 2) Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Third, your job as a lawyer is to advocate for your client, not for yourself. You're supposed to swallow your personal preferences and do what's best for them or what they want (for those occasions when they're not the same thing).

If you can't abide by those principles then you don't do criminal work or any work where you take on clients.

I know everyone is entitled to a defense, but as a lawyer you may know your client is 100% guilty, at that point what do you do?

I think the correct answer would be trying to strike the best deal possible to get a reduced sentence, i think that serves the individual without morally compromising the lawyer.

And on the other hand you have Johnnie Cochran, i dont think a lawyer like him was morally clean.

 

[Teppodama]

When I said foundational principles, I mean exactly that. There are far more nuanced parts of every movement where disparate opinions can appear. But the foundational stuff has to have agreement or you're discussing a different core ideology.

Let's take your Catholicism example for a moment. Catholicism takes a dim view on the practice of homosexuality. Which means they don't take a dim view on homosexuals practicing a heterosexual lifestyle within the other tenets of Catholicism. So a homosexual individual who exercises the self-discipline to subjugate his homosexual nature to Catholic mores is in many ways an ideal Catholic. Someone who buries his "sinful" nature to adhere to the word of God.

Swinging back to feminism for a moment, there are certain core principles that I think all feminists must be on board with and if someone defends something that violates one of those core principles then they can't also claim feminism as part of their ideology. Note that I said "defends something that violates." Being aware of something and ignoring it is one thing, defending it by giving reasons that justify the occurence is another.

Let's use racism for a different exaggerated example: If someone sees someone saying something racist and ignores it, there are plenty of reasons to avoid jumping into every race battle that you see. But if someone defends a racist statement, they can't turn around and claim to be anti-racism because being anti-something means you don't find that defensible under any circumstances or for any reason.

The act of proactively defending something that is indefensible under an ideology is what matters and when the indefensible statement refers a foundational principle it's even worse.

You can't defend government interference in the market and then claim that you're a laissez fair capitalist or a libertarian. You can have personal positions that parallel elements of the ideology but you don't agree with the ideology itself as a movement.

Excellent response Panamican. I'll respond after I've taken taken a a little time to consider your point and decide if I have a counter-argument. Truthfully, I couldn't care less about Kellyanne or ultimately how she's seen by other women. I just wanted to argue her side of the position and now I have to decide if in fact I actually stand by my earlier arguments enough to want to continue in opposition to you.

Thank you for a discussion I've actually become engaged enough in to even consider a formal capitulation.

 

[Rod1]

Agreed, immigration and globalization have always been with us. But the rate at which these goals have been pushed, and rate at which the populace has been allowed to acclimate to them, has always been relatively slow. The opposition has allowed the right to sit in the pot of water and adjust to the heat as it slowly comes to a boil. These days though the difference in comparison has been the equivalent of simply throwing them into an already boiling pot.

You can fight the water that is metaphorically killing you or the person that put you in the pot in the 1st place. The Left has been very good for a long time in getting the Right to waste their energy on trying to stop the water from boiling. Now, they've reminded the Right that if you don't want to slowly boil to death maybe you should fight the person putting you in the water in the 1st place.

And for the 1st time in ages the Left has helped arm them with a fire extinguisher and a gun in the form of the Presidency, the Senate and eventually the Supreme Court.

I dont think globalization and immigration to be exclusive of the left.

Republicans supported almost unanimously the immigration act of 1965 far more than Dems, they also passed NAFTA and tried to extend it to South America too.

 

[panamaican]

I know everyone is entitled to a defense, but as a lawyer you may know your client is 100% guilty, at that point what do you do?

I think the correct answer would be trying to strike the best deal possible to get a reduced sentence, i think that serves the individual without morally compromising the lawyer.

And on the other hand you have Johnnie Cochran, i dont think a lawyer like him was morally clean.

You suck it up and do your job. Or you don't do crim work. I generally don't do personal injury and never do medical malpractice because my parents hate malpractice lawyers. So, I turn down that work if anyone ever asks. But if I take a client then I do the job and every lawyer knows those are the rules.

I can defend a landlord one day and a tenant the next day and apply the same laws for people in completely different economic positions. The law is amoral. The lawyer should be as well.

Now, I might go home and complain to my wife about X client. And there are certainly times when you wish you didn't take a case but you can't let that interfere with your duty. And that's it in a nutshell. Courts and justice don't work if the lawyers and judges can't put their personal feelings aside while serving in their official capacities.

it doesn't matter if Cochran was morally clean unless he was violating the ethical rules of the profession. It matters if he defended his clients to the best of his ability.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

I often wonderwhat's the end goal of feminism? Is it really just the idea that women are treated equal to men or is it the idea that women are equally represented among men?

The former is a noble goal and I think is nearing completion in 1st world countries but the latter is not a realistic goal and should be handled by clinical psychologists who actually look into the science behind it.

 

[Rod1]

You suck it up and do your job. Or you don't do crim work. I generally don't do personal injury and never do medical malpractice because my parents hate malpractice lawyers. So, I turn down that work if anyone ever asks. But if I take a client then I do the job and every lawyer knows those are the rules.

I can defend a landlord one day and a tenant the next day and apply the same laws for people in completely different economic positions. The law is amoral. The lawyer should be as well.

Now, I might go home and complain to my wife about X client. And there are certainly times when you wish you didn't take a case but you can't let that interfere with your duty. And that's it in a nutshell. Courts and justice don't work if the lawyers and judges can't put their personal feelings aside while serving in their official capacities.

it doesn't matter if Cochran was morally clean unless he was violating the ethical rules of the profession. It matters if he defended his clients to the best of his ability.

Law is amoral, but its not perfect, it does relies on the goodwill of people.

If a lawyer is advising his customer to lie under oath, he is telling his client to commit perjury, which may be a part of protecting its client as best as possible, but clearly a moral violation that a shitload of lawyers carry on.

So i dont think that the duty to protect someone trascends moral barriers. Cochran knew Simpson was guilty and yet he groomed him to lie to the jury, thats clearly immoral.

 

[Fedorable]

Never heard of her tbh.

Was she in Def Leopard?

good joke. Are you geddon it everyone else?

 

[Teppodama]

Panamaican I believe I officially cede the argument to you. You present your case better than I do and actually have conviction about your position whereas I do not. Thank you for giving me something to think about.