I have nothing in particular to say so I'm not sure why I am compelled to update but here goes;
One, Seana, you are one of the least whiny people I know. I miss being able to comment on your blog. That is all. :)
Two, I have some serious issues with OT right now but don't know how to express them. I *will* say (possibly to the disdain of some of my bloggy friends) that the women's worth thread is irritating the hell out of me. I'm certainly not going to argue that sexism does not exist and that some have been personally effected by it, but I will say that in that thread, some women are really looking for an argument. When someone comes in and says they haven't seen it (sexism), or that their spouse is paid equally, they are prodded to explain themselves as if they are somehow in disagreement with it. I guess that I either live in a bubble, or that some women are *looking* for the inequality. I think this spans across issues besides this one, as well. I can't say I have ever felt unfairly treated nor do I know anyone who has. *shrug* YMMV
Three, I am sick and tired of the hateful posts made on OT. I don't know if I am biased for some reason or what, but I feel that some of the more "open-minded liberals" are far more bigoted towards conservatives than the other way around. I can't tell you how often I agree with what a liberal leaning peep is saying, but am so turned off by their holier than thou tone, I end up walking away seething. /rant
Guess I did have something to say after all. I'm in a mood, so I apologize for unloading like this here, but where better to do it than your own blog?
See Seana? You? Are not whiny at all. :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Sometimes a great message gets all mucked up in the delivery, you know?
You've summed up my OT cranky pretty well, MM.
Why I Don't Do Politics: by Frodis
It's not that I don't care, or that I don't have an opinion, or that I'm afraid to state it. I do care, I do have opinions, and I'm not afraid to say what I think.
But politics and political discussions are not for me. I'm not into the name calling and the "you must be stupid if you think..." and pot shots and one liners. That's common in politics and political discussions and I know that some people really enjoy the sport of it, and I'd never tell people NOT to do it, but I won't join in. To me, it's terribly disrespectful to refer to a leader, any leader, as stupid or call him or her names. Even if I do think he or she has done something stupid, and even if I totally disagree philosophically with the leader.
I find it childish and petty and terribly undermining to a person's argument to take the tactics of belittling people, whether it's the people they're arguing with or arguing about. It's not for me.
I think the way I do because of my personal and unique perspective on life. I recognize that other people feel differently, due to their personal and unique perspectives. I respect that. I don't have to agree, but I can almost always see where a person is coming from. Including when that person is being a giant pig head.
So. I'm with you, MM. I'm tired of the disrespect.
Being a gay woman, I can say that I have had my share of bigotry. I've seen it and I've felt it before. BUT...But, I don't feel as if I have been held back because of it. I don't live in a bubble and I know that it is out there but I also don't think it is as bad as some of those are saying it is. It aint like the 50's were. I am a woman and I am gay and I could use both of those to play the victim. But I don't want to. I agree that some just like the argument.
Gah, I'm rambling. In short, I agree with you for the most part.
I do sometimes fall into the politcal trap. I definitely do call our leader names. I prefer that people not really have an opposing belief from mine *giggle* but I do try to respect them anyhow. I will say that I fail in that department though when it comes to gay rights. I take it personally and can't help but attack.
Things like religion and abortion and welfare and whatnot, I may have opposing views with people but I guess since I'm not personally attached to those, I don't take opposition personally. I just can't help it when it comes to gay rights. It's a personal attack on me is how I feel. I'm sorry if I offend any of my friends because of that though.
Somebody shut me up. I've rambled too long.
Agreed, rambling fool.
Thank you, Frodis.
"It's not that I don't care, or that I don't have an opinion, or that I'm afraid to state it. I do care, I do have opinions, and I'm not afraid to say what I think." <-- This is how I feel, too. I rarely say anything, but not for lack of having something to say.
Carey, I cay say honestly that IMO, you have never crossed the line in which I was referring to. I'm not saying that because I like you, either. I don't think I *would* like you as much if you were like that. I think everyone is entitled to have strong opinions and they should not have to apologize for them. I am talking about those who have an *intolerance* for differeing opinions and turn themselves into assholes while trying to convey their point. And the worst part? They NEVER see that that's what they're doing. I get so frustrated with those individuals. Geg is a perfect example of that. She has no idea how intolerant/hypocritical she comes across as.
1. I am not touching that woman thread with a ten-foot pole. For many reasons, but the main reason is because I pretty much refuse to get into another 20 something post exchange with a certain poster who completely fails to see my point so that they can attempt to make me look like the bad guy on the board in front of the rest of the OT world, but then PM me to tell me something completely different.
2. This is one of the reasons I absolutely love Breezy so very much. And this has nothing to do with anyone else because I love lots of ya'll. But I love Breezy because she's easy in that I know that I will never have to worry about a political discussion coming up. *grin*
I definitely agree with the holier-than-thou political folks, and the liberal peeps being more condescending and disrespectufl than most conservative peeps (Rudy is by far the exception).
I disagree on the woman's worth issue. I think there IS an inequality issue out there, and working in the health professions in academia, it rears it's ugly head often. I think we are all guilty of basing our opinions on our own experience, or that of our close friends. I think it's fine to state that hasn't been your experience (as many did there), but they did not then say that they believe it can happen. By just posting "DW makes more than me," etc., it makes it seem the person is denying there is any problem and the fact DW makes more is proof it's a make-believe issue.
That's my .02.
And? *smooch* <---kissing and making up after our disagreements is awesome.
I think Boo just called Breezy dumb and easy. *grin*
I don't recall getting any kind of smooch from Kim after she disagreed with me yesterday.
She never smooches me. She just drags my aras to some part of the country to torture me in a rainy campground.
Kim, I don't think I implied that it does *not* exist, and I wouldn't. I find it very difficult to measure though. I think some people assume it's why there is a pay difference, when it might not be, and others may be clueless as to it's impact on them, while it *is* happening to them. I guess my interpretation of the posters who commented on what their wives make is different than yours. I think when having a conversation about an issue like this, it's important to represent both sides of the argument. Their experiences are just as valid as the others, and I didn't read their comments as trying to state that the issue was not true, just that they are not being affected by it. Kwim?
I think two things can equally be true. In my blog post, my point was that certain peeps looked like they were trying to create arguments when they weren't even certain there was one.
Ok, more later, I'm running late for work.
*smooches* for everyone who has commented. Kim, I'm glad you are comfortable stating a different opinion here and that we don't need to worry about it effecting our friendship. *smooch*
I don't like Boo anymore. Not only does she not always agree with my points of view, she was mean to me when acting like the Mole. Hrmph.
Hey look at that, there is a line forming to the left. *grin*
1. *waves to Seana* in MM's blog since I can't do it in hers.
2. Don't know what's up on OT, but sexism is one of those isms that fades in & out of life. Like ageism and racism and looks-ism and etc.isms. Sometimes they are in your face and sometimes very much hidden, but they are something to always monitor yourself for so that you are never a knowing or unknowing part of the problem.
3. That is my memory of how it used to be also. Altho there was one conservative poster I detested who used congeniality as a Trojan horse - I thought that was worse somehow.
*kicks Bravie*
I fully expect OT to implode this election year and we can thank gag and singer for it. Why do we need 10 threads about the democratic party speeches? I hate seeing OT so full of political crap. And that's what it is crap. It's not interesting discussions, it's mud slinging and disgusting.
*flings poo at Boo and Breezy*
Why does Breezy not acknowledge my love?
And why is Bravie flinging poo at me when I just professed my undying lvoe for her elsewhere?
That is typical Breezy, don't take it personally. *snort*
I fling poo with love. Don't take it personally.
If it makes you feel better Augie just kicked me and I pooted on her foot.
When you guys are done slinging poo, I have a long and serious reply to post. :)
Okay, I’m weighing in here against my better judgment. First of all, here is the exact text of the question in the woman’s worth thread that started the “discussion”: Do people even realize that a woman makes on average $.78 less than a man for the exact same work?
Right here is one of the problems I have with OT and more specifically, the OT Liberal Community*. The question starts out with a faulty premise. It’s easy to determine how much women make versus men, but infinitely more difficult to conclude that it’s for the exact same work. I think my point is similar to what MM is saying, too. You may be paid less, and you may perceive that it’s sexism at play, but perceiving it and knowing it are vastly different.
In fact, here is a link to a summary of Warren Farrell’s book Why Men Earn More. He is a former board member of the National Organization for Women, and spent years researching this subject after asking the question “if men are paid more for the same work, why would anyone hire a man?”
He learned that men earn more than women, but not for the same work—for 25 different workplace choices they make. Men’s choices lead to men earning more money; women’s choices lead to women having better lives. Not every woman, of course, but WOMEN in general.
I am a state worker. I make significantly less than my private industry counterparts – perhaps half as much in some cases. Why would I do this? Am I less valuable? Not as smart? Not as capable? Why would I settle for such a lower level of pay? The answer is because I get other things from my state job that are more valuable to me right now. I get job stability, a low stress atmosphere, lots of holidays, a very flexible schedule, and excellent retirement benefits. My BFF who works in private industry envies all those qualities of my job to the point of being resentful, and I have to remind him how much more money he makes, that I don’t get a company car, or free trips to Hawaii and Spain like he does. Doesn’t it make sense that perhaps women as a whole, YMMV, choose jobs with more stability, flexibility, shorter hours, etc? Or is society as biased against state workers as it is against women?
There are a couple reasons I’ve stopped posting on OT, at least for now. First, some of the people are so vile and unpleasant that they make it a place I don’t want to play, despite the presence of my friends there.
Second, whereas I once thought OT was a good place for reasoned, intelligent discussion of the great issues of life, I've learned that in truth, it is not. The place is so heavily left-leaning, that the leftists of the board don't feel it’s necessary to state the truth, then follow it up with their opinion and arguments. Instead, it’s a bashing ground, full of lies, accusations, and hyperbole and a complete absence of reasoned discussion. There’s nothing I can learn by going there. One good example is the gay marriage debate. If you are against gay marriage, then OT labels you as a homophobic bigot (note that I am not stating where I stand on the issue - the ISSUE is beside the point). MandyM’s tagline “I wish I could choose for others not to be bigots” was a direct result of that topic, I’m pretty sure, and it's the common opinion, not the exception. Once you’ve given a hateful, derogatory label to someone with an opposing opinion, the discussion is over.
Perhaps the final straw for me, the breaking point, came from a comment ginger made to nailbone, praising him for his openmindedness when he changed his mind on gay marriage (from anti to pro). Would she have praised my openmindedness if I had announced a change on the same issue in the other direction? Or if I announced that based on the persuasive conservative arguments, I had switched my position on abortion from pro-choice to pro-life? Of course not. No, reason and truth have no place on OT, so I only go there to observe the carnage, much like the neighbor who watches a house on fire, or a motorist looking at a passing car wreck.
If I ever come back, I’ll have to adopt geg’s quote from post 89 of that thread as my tagline: “I think all of your arguments are complete garbage”. Well said, geg!
*By OT Liberal Community, I mean the overall tone and content of the Liberal side of the “arguments”, not referring to individual liberal posters some of whom are respondents to this blog and whom I love despite their viewpoints. Hey, my dad is a liberal and I somehow manage to love him.
Mark,
I know that you are using the gay marriage thing as nothing more of an example and that you are not stating how feel one way or the other.
But I am going to argue a couple of points. Afterward, you will probably argue back. In the end, I will feel no differently about you and I hope you will feel no differently about me.
Ginger praising Nailbone about his change of heart on this particular matter isn't really about her feeling as if she is right and he has been wrong and she is better and he was not as worthy prior to his change of heart.
When it comes to gay marriage, it is in my opinion about some sort of bigotry. Before I continue, may I say that my father is dead set against gay marriage but believes that we should have the same rights and privleges, just don't call it marriage. Anyhow...
Prior, Boner did not feel that gays should even have the same rights. He felt we were asking for something more than we deserved. It is, in my opinion, bigoted for anyone to not want to deny me the SAME rights as my straigh counterpart. I ask for marriage so that I can be considered an equal counterpart in this society as straights.
We aren't talking about abortion here. Abortion is about what some believe to be taking a right away from a living being. That living being, being an unborn child. I am pro choice but I certainly do not feel that pro lifers are wrong or bigoted and need to change their minds. That isn't about ignorance or tolerance.
Gay marriage is though. It is about millions of straight people who are given benefits because of who they love and gay people being denied those benfits because of who they love.
In the case of Ginger and Nailbone, he does deserve praise for being open minded. Had he changed from pro to anti, it would have meant that his mind was closed to allowing fellow humans, all humans, equal rights. As soon as you start to exclude groups of people, you are being closed minded.
For instance, I am a bigot when it comes to adults being allowed to love underage children. I stand firm and am proud to say that I am against that. for different moral reasons which I don't need to go into here.
I agree that both sides of all OT arguments have their outspoken people. I agree that some of those make me want to vomit. I don't care for their style of "debating". I don't believe it only leans to the left. Pre, Boner, Jbug, Rudy, Keithfan are some who come to mind.
I agree that OT is a more liberal leaning board but that is out in the open and anyone who joins knows that they are going to be a minority.
If I joined a message board and I knew that it leaned heavily to the right, I would know what I was in for. so I generally do get annoyed when people complain about OT being heavily to the left. Yes, it is. And that is how it will probably stay. I'm not saying shut up but I am saying that you (you in general) know that it is left leaning, so don't complain. But certainly complain about some of those who are hard hitting.
There are plenty of lefites on the board who I love dearly (Boo for one) and her politics in no way make me feel less or differntly or poorly about her. In fact, I consider her to be one of my best friends. But it doesn't mean that I always agree with her politics.
I know this was way long but if we are going to seriously discuss whether people are bigoted because of where they stand on gay marriage, I will step in.
So Mark, let's just say that you are against gay marriage. Just saying. In my mind I would feel as if you were bigoted towards me and all gays because you don't want me to stand next to you shoulder to shoulder, carrying all of the same rights as you get to enjoy. And? that would be okay. It would be an area where we disagree and would stay away from discussing. and we would still be friends.
*exhales* Whew!!!
Why, why, why, why, why in Cod's name would you sit here and call me a fricking LEFITE?
And WTF is a LEFITE?
LOL. Michelle came home as I was typing and so I felt rush because we had to leave for a concert.
I meant that Boo is a rightie. A lefite, opposed to a leftie, is a special word that I will not explain. If you don't know what it means, you don't need to. :P
I want to clarify one thing. Just because I feel that people have some bigoted thoughts does not mean that I think they are a bigot.
First, a couple of things. 1) although ginger’s post was cited as one that sent me “over the edge”, and despite the fact that ginger and I are probably polar opposites on most issues, she is not a poster whose style or approach often bothers me. 2) there are plenty individual liberal (and conservative) posters who stay above the fray. My blanket statement was how *I* perceive the community and board as a whole and doesn’t reflect on individuals, especially those of you commenting in this thread that I call my friends. 3) Bravie, I agree with you about understanding and accepting that the board is left-leaning. I expect the same dynamic would happen on a mirror image board that leaned to the right. I’m disappointed in the quality of the debate, not the numbers left or right. I also do believe that in general, the right believes that people on the left are wrong, but the left believes that people on the right are BAD. I even wrote a blog entry about that (link later if I get around to it).
Also, (as you noted) it’s not the actual *issue* of gay marriage that sparked my reply, it was an example of the way conservatives are dealt with on OT – blanketly labeled as homophobes and bigots, unfairly in my opinion. I think the word “bigot” is a defamatory term, similar in tone and content to “racist”. I’m against mayonnaise, but never would call myself bigoted against mayonnaise. So, I think labeling someone who opposes gay marriage a bigot (and a homophobe) is not fair and pretty much ends the discussion. I *do* have mixed feelings on the gay marriage issue itself, and, as happens with me on many issues, when I see one side “bullying” the other, I want to take the side of the underdog. It becomes less about the content of the issue and more about the tone and quality of the discussion. I agree with those of you who are now thinking to yourselves “that’s a messed up way of deciding where to side on big issues”, btw! :)
One reason this particular issue IS personal is because I have good friends who are gay – especially you, Bravie, whom I adore and whose friendship I treasure, (though I admittedly don’t spend enough time and energy nurturing it). The very notion that I could be considered a homophobe if I came down on the side opposing gay marriage (not civil rights for gays) is hurtful because it completely mischaracterizes my feelings. I also understand that I have no idea what it’s like to be gay and have to endure the stigmas and bigotry that it brings. I can totally understand your taking the issue personally.
Last thing – Bravie, one of the most remarkable things about you is your ability to disagree and still be friends.
*smooch* <- dittoing Kim
First I want to say that MM and I have talked about her blog being used as a platform for this discussion. I apologized to her and explained that I am using it because this is where it came up. As soon as she says she wants the discussion to end, I will stop. :)
Mark,
Please do note that never once did I use the word homophobe to describe those against gay marriage. Phobe means a fear of and I in no way believe that all opposed to gay marriage are homophobes. But I will stand by the word bigoted. Please also note that I was very careful to say that I don't believe that those who oppose gay marriage are bigots in general but are bigoted on this issue. I beg to differ with you. If you are anti mayo, then you are indeed bigoted against it. Anti and bigoted mean the same. Bigoted means to disagree with the believe system of something. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you are bigoted in regards to gay marriage. But I don't feel you are a bigot. Onward with my reply:
Allow me to describe to you and to all what one facet of being gay feels like.
You are on a bus and the bus' name is Gay Marriage, and a black man gets on. You say "ah, hello black man, please come on and ride my bus. But please, ride in the back of the bus. I want you to have the right to ride this bus but I am big on tradition and therefore want you to stick to tradition and ride in the back. Again, I want you to have the same rights as I do, so you can feel free to ride the bus. Just sit in the back. See? Separate but equal. I want you to have the same rights as straights but I want it called something else (civil union) (civil union=back of the bus)"
Now, if we really want equal but we want gays to have it called a civil union, that's fine. Because that is what marriage rights and benefits really are. But if we are to stand equal (allowing the black man to sit anywhere on the bus that he wants) then straights need to change it to civil unions as well. And the tradition of marriage can be left alone to the church. Remember seperation of church and state?
That would mean the exclusion of the word marriage on anything that had to do with the state or federal government. Those would then have to be referred to as civil unions. and we can leave marriage to be used as a word relating only to religious ceremonies.
When you got married you had to file with the state and then create a civil union between you, your wife and the government. The government which is supposed to be seperate from the church.
Again, sorry to label it as a bigoted point of view but from my view that is what it is; me being denied equality of ALL shapes, forms and words because of who I love.
I find it funny that a simple word such as marriage which is supposed to mean unity, ironically enough only means divided and seperate when you are a gay person who is being denied the right to be united.
Me: I go to work every single day. I pay taxes on the money that I make. I own a home. I pay taxes on the home that I own. I live my life every single day as that as an American. I obey the rules and the laws (for the most part) that our government has laid down for me. I have voted in every single elction since the age of 18. I have gone to jury duty and never once have I ever tried to get out of it. I have done everything that my government has asked of me. Everything. And in return they have denied me the right to visit my life partner in the hospital when she is sick. They have denied me the right to inherit from her should she die. They have denied me the right to proudly mark "joint" when filing my income taxes. They have denied me every single familial and monetary right and benefit that all straight counterparts have been afforded. Why is it so much for me to ask for one word, marriage, be attached to my 17 year relationship?
Why in a day and age when the straight world is trying to protect the beauty that is called marriage, am I denied after 17 years in my relationship when over 50% of the straight population has a marriage that ends in divorce. In a time when we have tv shows setting complete strangers up to get married. In a time when the Britney Spears of the world make a mockery of marriage. When Elizabeth Taylor who has been married 8 times is allowed to make a mockery of marriage. When straight people don't even take marriage seriously anymore. Why do straights get to use the word marriage and gays don't when it's straights who abuse the right to marry?
If someone can explain these things to me, then maybe I can understand why anyone would want to deny me the right to unite with my partner of 17 years just because she is a woman.
Yes, it does hurt.
Again, sorry Tab to have taken over your blog. *smooch*
I rarely read those threads. When I do read them, and want to post, I figure that someone has already said what I want to say. The threads are so long and I don't want to read every post.
Absolutely case closed. *smooch*
I just want to point out one more thing.
I know that you don't like to be the host of such icky topics like this and it probably made you a little bit nervous because one never knows when these can go too far. From my point of view, I feel really good about how this discussion took place. Two people on opposite sides of a debate were able to state their beliefs without personal attacks on each other. I think that Mark and I walk away from this conversation with our friendship intact. :)
Now, back to the regularly scheduled smut. :)
Carey, I think you have stated your feelings on this very well. I'm glad you both had the opportunity to "debate" the issue and were able to do so with respect. Wish there were more conversations like this on OT.
Now, as the administrator of this blog, apparently I *do* have the power to end the discussion (or so I've been told, lol). I wanted to make sure no one got cut off in the middle of this, and I think no one has. If MTW or you has the desire to debate this further, I would ask that you take it to email.
Also, I'd like to weigh in a little on this before I consider it 'case closed'.
As for the word "bigot"; the definition of the word was not strong enough for me personally to make a choice as to whether I thought it fair to use. Then I used the thesaraus and found this:
Synonym Collection v1.1
Main Entry: bigot
Part of Speech: noun
Synonyms: dogmatist, fanatic, hypocrite, intolerant, racist, zealot
I think there are a lot of people who do not feel strongly enough to be categorized like that. It might boil down to semantics, or each persons interpretation of the words being used, I don't know. I think there is a big difference between being "intolerant" or being a "fanatic" as opposed to having a "preference". The word *extreme* comes to mind here, and in my opinion, we are not talking about extremes.
A "bigot" to me is someone who hates the idea of equal rights and would be upset if they came about. But that's just me and we all have our own opinions. I don't expect to change Carey's mind on that, nor do I suspect I represent any one elses feelings, but I did find it an interesting topic in here and had to do a little thinking about it on my own. I think there are many other words or levels of "bigotry" that should be acknowledged.
I also acknowledge that I despise tuna and believe it is vile. Disgusting and vomit inducing. If you love tuna though, you obviously would not think any of those words applied and perhaps you would think I was being dramatic or unfair to tuna. *snort* The point obviously being that how we view something and choose to catergorize it really can boil down to our own perceptions.
Thank you both for being able to share your feelings here, and again, doing so with respect. I personally never let a disagreement with anyone who has posted here affect my feelings for them and I hope the same can be said for you.
Umm, Case Closed?
You're psychic Carey...posting before I did. ;-)
Sorry about that, I had deleted it after posting because my italics weren't in place, lol. Thank you for your reply. I can now stop popping my ativan and valium. *grin*
Do I get to have the last word? :) Ironically, the *issue* I am actually passionate about has more to do with the gender pay gap. I'm really hoping someone will read the link I posted.
As for gay marriage, Bravie, you make a compelling and persuasive argument, and I truly value that. I won't dismiss it or forget it, I promise you. Thanks for putting yourself out there the way you did. I had a comment about this whole thing sketched out in my head, but MM said it better:
"Wish there were more conversations like this on OT"
My final thought? MM, I think we agree on the tuna issue. Are we talking tuna salad? Like with MAYO in it? Blech!!!!
Post a Comment