A Request for Civility
As more women appear in positions of political power or influence we see more language that seeks to demean them personally. Often this demeans them in a sexual sense. But if the allegation is not justified for the woman in question, such language has the effect of demeaning all women.
For example, Kamala Harris is not a 'ho'. Although often labeled as such by partisans, there is no evidence that she ever prostituted herself and, in contrast, she is an ambitious, accomplished and intelligent women who is soon to be the vice-President of the United States. Those labeling her a 'ho' do so because 25 years ago she had a one year relationship with Willie Brown (he was her boyfriend) who wound up opening a career door for her. Calling her a 'ho' simply because her boyfriend did something nice for her (implying this was a prostitution contract) is wrong. Worse, it implies that any women whose boyfriend does her a favor of some kind has ipso facto prostituted herself to achieve that reward. This is raw misogyny.
Likewise, Melania Trump is not a whore. There is no evidence that she ever prostituted herself either. In her past as a model she posed nude and has plenty of risque images. But unless we are to deem all risque models whores, this does not apply to her. She also married Trump — a wealthy man old enough to be her father. She has been married to him for 16 years now and they have a son. This is not the meaning of the label 'whore'. One could label her a gold-digger, given the circumstances, but to go to whore is yet again demeaning all women who marry into wealth or power as simply prostituting themselves. It is also raw misogyny.
When a well-known women is unfairly labeled a 'ho' or 'whore' or equivalent simply because her boyfriend or husband favors her with opportunities and/or gifts, that implies that all women who benefit in some way from their boyfriend or husband is a 'ho' or 'whore'.
My point is not that people like Melania Trump or Kamala Harris are special and are above criticism. Not at all. Rather, my point is that unfair labels applied to publicly known women implicitly applies the same labels to all women whose circumstances are similar. It is misogyny, whether intentional or not.
Tags
Who is online
99 visitors
We can do better.
We could have done better for the last four years. Instead we got constant "tRUMP" and "president*"; they got away with it constantly, and NOW you want civility??
You have generalized this topic. I am not talking about all the silly names used as partisan attacks.
Here I am talking specifically about attacks that are inherently misogynistic.
My argument is specific, not general.
And yes, we should not be demeaning all or most women with these comments.
It's overdue in the sense that it needs to be constantly repeated, like anti-racism must be constantly repeated.
But let's avoid mixing stories. I don't remember a determined campaign to label Melania a whore.
Fascist propagandists, including those here on NT, have insisted on "Kamala is a whore".
I do not remember any "Melania is a whore" campaign.
Spot on Bob. I wrote this article because there is a deliberate effort to constantly call Harris a ho. Not just the occasional and varied emotional allegations but intentional repetition. Melania has been criticized in various ways but there was no, as you properly label it, campaign to label her a whore. And in her case, given her past nudity, the case becomes more murky. Her circumstances are atypical since the vast majority of women are not models and have not posed nude and have not married a billionaire old enough to be her father. It is wrong to label her a whore but the argument that such is blatant misogyny is not as clear as it is with Harris. Calling Harris a 'ho' is so over the top, given her circumstances, that it clearly is a misogynistic insult to the millions of women whose boyfriend did something for them.
My point is to make it raise the awareness that attacking a single woman due only to specific circumstances is an attack on all women in similar circumstances.
Congrats on this. You've provided a master's thesis in writing utter partisan bullshit couched in the terms of the detached neutral observer.
First, of course is the compulsive need to tie Melania Trump to Harris. She'll no longer be the first lady in two weeks and out of the news while Harris is just at the beginning of her term in the public eye. The time to decry the whore calling of Melania was 5 years ago. You, and the others now so eager to silence criticism of Harris, sat back silently as she was obsessively attacked as a whore, communist, spy, prostitute, etc etc.. It's like watching the people who called McCain a Nazi and Church bomber in 2009 praise him as an American hero once he was safely dead.
More importantly, Melania is not a politician. She is a private citizen who happened to marry a man who would become President. She's never sought anyone's vote and she wields no power. Her private life and character isn't even relecant to political dicsusions. Contrast that to the woman who will be the second most powerful person in the world in a matter of weeks and who has already tried and failed to become our President. One sought out public life and wants to rule the country, one married a private citizen who no one expected would ever obtain the Presidency. Equating the level of scrutiny they are held to is disingenuous.
Harris should be defended on her own terms.
e there is a deliberate effort to constantly call Harris a ho but there was no, as you properly label it, campaign to label her a whore.
How you typed this with a straight face is beyond me, if you managed to so. [deleted] In fact, just yesterday, out of nowhere with no possible tie to the world's event's one of our mort partisan liberals attacked her as a whore, said she was a bad role model for women and attacked her status as an immigrant. Which of course led to the piling on by others calling her a prostitute and claiming that Trumps picked her because she was the best whore in the whorehouse at receiving golden showers. Again, this was on a seed that had zero to do with Melania. Just one of the many obsessed left wingers was compelled to start insulting her and her family out of the blue, and the rest piled on.
That's what makes your point so dishonest. The campaign against Melania didn't stop at attacking her based on actual facts (she posed for risquee pictures as a model! the horror), the campaign against her consisted of literally making up despicable claims against her that no one could actually prove (she's a spy!)(She's jealous of Trump fucking Ivanka! (the made up incest campaign is another lowlight of the left here).
and you claim there was no organized campaign against her? For shame!
ase, given her past nudity, the case becomes more murky.
Stop this now. Trying to rationalize calling her a whore even if you just can't quite give into it yourself because she was a model who did what models do [deleted] circumstances are atypical since the vast majority of women
[deleted] You do your best to make Melania's situation atypical while generalizing Harris's almost beyond of recognition. First, despite your claim, professional models taking revealing photos is not "atypical." It's mot "murky" whether that makes her a whore. It simply doesn't. You sound like one of those people who used to write to Sports Illustrated to cancel your subscription because Cherly Teigs posed in a see through bikini. Tell me, is it "murky" whether Cheryl Tiegs is a whore?
After sliming Trump, you turn to whitewashing Harris by minimizing and dishonestly characterizing what she did.
alling Harris a 'ho' is so over the top, given her circumstances, that it clearly is a misogynistic insult to the millions of women whose boyfriend did something for them.
Straight out of the liberal playbook. [deleted] To show your bad faith, let's just note that you point out that Trump is "old enough to be Melania''s father, yet there is a larger age gap between Brown and Harris. How come that's not relevant? Is it "atypical" for a 29 year old woman to date 60 year old married men?
.What Harris did is not at all common of course. Her married boyfriend who in TIG's words was old enough to be her father, didn't just do "something" for her, he used his position as an elected official to appoint his girlfriend to tax payer funded positions that paid Harris hundreds of thousands of dollars and jumped started her career. That's not the quite the same as fixing her car, is it?
In fact, it's incredibly rare for a lawyer and politicians to accept tax payer funded appointments that paid her hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. These are all public acts of nepotism at best and corruption at worst. For the Kamala is pure as the driven snow worshippers out there, let's here you say with a straight face that you would have said nothing against Trump had he been brazenly appointed mistresses like Karen McDougall to government jobs. Let's see you pretend to claim that would be okay.
SO by all means, let's talk about "atypical" the actions of these woman are. How many models have posed for sexy photos vs how many politicians started their career by accepting tax payer funded jobs that paid them hundreds of thousands of dollars from their boyfriends? So C'mon, it should be easy since there are supposedly "millions" just like her. Which other female politician started their career by sleeping with a man double her age and accepted tax payer funded worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from him?
I started replying to the extremely personal, presumptuous crap in your comment. Given I disagree with pretty much every sentence and every allegation you make I am not going to spend my time. I will just categorically deem it emotional attacks.
Instead, since you are, it would seem, trying to object to my request, let's clear things up:
Do you consider it correct to label Melania a whore or Harris a 'ho'?
Do you comprehend why labeling a woman as such based on her circumstances implicitly labels all women with similar circumstances?
Giving up is probably your best move. How can you defend the "it's murky" whether Melania is a whore, or claiming she hasn't been the subject of constant attacks by the progressives on this that are much more dishonest than anything leveled at Harris , or even that implying that millions of women started their political career by sleeping with a married man twice their age and accepting tax payer funded appointments from their boyfriends worth hundreds of thousands of dollars?
ou consider it correct to label Melania a whore or Harris a 'ho'?
I don't call either of them hos. And if that had been your point, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Instead, you argued that it's "murky" whether Melania is a ho and misrepresented Harris's history in order to downplay it. Your whole point is to legitimize the attacks against Melania (who isn't even a poltician and has no power) while insulating Harris and claiming any criticism of her very public corrupt acts is "misogynistic ."
ou comprehend why labeling a woman as such based on her circumstances implicitly labels all women with similar circumstances
I'm still waiting for you to identify one single woman in Harris circumstances. Which elected official in this country (and the fact the she is a public official is what make's her actions relevant) accepted appointments of tax payer funded positions from boyfriends twice their age?
Spot on.
A childish taunt. I am not going to waste time dealing with a stream of personal attacks based on you inventing your own facts and presuming to know what is in my mind.
First of all, it is wrong to label Melania a whore. Do you comprehend that? Is it clear to you that she is one of the examples I used in this article?
My comment was that Melania and Kamala have quite different circumstances. On one hand we have a woman with a risque past (with hard evidence of nude photos) and who married a wealthy man old enough to be her father. On the other hand we have a women who for the past 25 years has shown herself to be intelligent, ambitious, successful and has done so on her own merits. But her boyfriend 25 years ago did her a favor and opened a career door.
You should be able to understand the difference between those two sets of circumstances and see that Melania's circumstances are closer to using her looks and gender for opportunity than those of Kamala. It is thus a more difficult case to make. That was my point. It is not that Melania is a whore, it is the tie to sex and male arousal that makes her case more difficult to make than Harris. But, again, Melania is not a whore (just in case you missed that).
I also did not say it was 'murky' whether or not Melania is a whore. That is you making yet another bullshit allegation while ignoring what I have actually written.
Now, look at how much time I spent addressing just one of your bullshit allegations. This is why I categorically ignored your first post. I am not going to waste my time given your post was meritless and clearly just one long personal attack.
I did not make that claim. I compared the level of attacks against Melania to those against Kamala. You continue to misrepresent my words. That is a slimy tactic.
Don't know what you are trying to say here.
I did not imply that. You cannot seem to stick with what I write. You have to constantly put words in my mouth. Lying is a slimy way to engage in debate. Don't follow the examples of Trump.
The circumstance of Harris as I described them:
Millions of women have had boyfriend (and husbands) who have done something nice for them. To deem Harris a 'ho' because her boyfriend of one year did something nice for her 25 years ago is blatant misogyny. It demeans every woman whose boyfriend or husband buys her a car, a condo, jewelry, opens career doors, etc. You get that, right?
Then apparently you did not read my article. Try that first.
You take one word in one comment, twist it out of proportion, and then portray it in opposition to everything I have written. That is intellectual dishonesty.
Then wait until you drop. You have stated those as the circumstance while disregarding what I actually wrote. So since this is your strawman, you get to answer it.
But I have a question for you. You claim that you would not call Harris a 'ho'. So what is the point of your 'waiting' question. If the circumstances you describe are not those that warrant calling Harris a 'ho' then they do not apply. You get that, right? If not, read the article.
First, this isn’t about the words “whore” or “ho” exclusively. It’s about misogyny. Specifically of this type:
Also, I don’t know how we would define “determined” or why that is a necessary clarification. I don’t think TiG said anything about determined campaigns. Regardless, these things are said. Here are some seeds (and some member comments, including one from you) just from this site. I just picked a few at random. This was not an exhaustive search:
Daily Mail Pays Melania Trump Damages Over Modelling Article
Melania Trump Entered US With 'Einstein' Visa Designated For People With 'Extraordinary Ability'
Melania Shows Incredible Class, Invites Special Guests To Bush Funeral
Trump Family Christmas Card Wishes Families ‘Merry Christmas’ Instead Of ‘Happy Holidays’
If?? What do you think my article states? What, in your mind, is the point my article makes?
Here is the summary at the end of the article. What about this is unclear to you?:
I didn't "invent" any facts, or you would have exposed them. . I used your own words and if they don't reflect your mind, that's your faualt.
Is it clear to you that she is one of the examples I used in this article?
You say that, and then you turn around and claim it's "murky" whether she's a whore. It's not "murky" and implying there is a good faith basis for it by calling the issue "murky" is not much better than simply calling her a whore.
h a risque past (with hard evidence of nude photos) and who married a wealthy man old enough to be he
And yet, again, you don't mention there is a larger gap between Harris and her benefactor. You keep citing the age gap as evidence of whoredom, but ignore it for Harris.
I compared the level of attacks against Melania to those against Kamala
And claiming that Kamala has been attacked more harshly than Melania is gaslighting the forum. There's really no other word for it. It's incredibly dishonest.. By all means, point out where anyone is claiming Harris worked in a whore house and was famous for "golden showers." That's the sort of insanity that the left on this site has normalized when discussing the first lady (who again, isn't a politician)
Lying is a slimy way to engage in debate.
Physician, heal thyself.
You made the dishonest claim that "millions of women" are in the same boat as Harris. I pointed out the actual facts of her situation. You have to downplay them.
you claimed millions of women are in the same boat as Harris, yet you can't name any. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of woman who've taken racy photos. Is it still "murky" in your mind whether every woman who takes a racy photo is a whore?
have had boyfriend (and husbands) who have done something nice for them.
Here's where the dishonesty kicks up a notch. You start with the strawman that Harris is criticized "because their boyfriend did something nice for her." Just stop peddling that BS, it's beneath you. No one cares if her boyfriend "did something nice her". The issue is she recieved hundreds of thousands of dollars and appointments to government commissions from her boyfriend. That's nepotism and corruption. Why can't you address that instead of bizarrely equating public acts of corruption with "something nice" like giving her a ring?
It demeans every woman whose boyfriend or husband buys her a car, a condo, jewelry, opens career doors, etc
That's insane. Criticizing a politician for acts of public corruption doesn't "demean woman." I'll say this, you have a Trump like ability to distort reality in order to justify sticking with increasingly irrational argument.
hen wait until you drop
I'm not waiting, because I know you can't answer it. That's the point of asking, to expose the weakness of your claim. Contra your gaslighting, very few, if any, females, let alone politicians in general , engaged in the sort of corrupt behavior Harris did..
Bullshit. You cherry-picked words and spun an entirely different meaning. No way someone can honestly and carefully read my article and not understand my point.
And here ⇡ is a perfect example of what I just noted. I did not say it is murky whether she's a whore. Read what I wrote:
This was in response to a comment by Bob. I was explaining to Bob why it is more difficult to make a case defending her against the label of whore then it is for Harris. It was a relative comparison based on the circumstances. You spin this into: 'it is murky whether she's a whore'. That is a blatant misrepresentation. It is a lie. Clearly I do not consider her a whore given all I have written here (and critically my article content itself) and do not consider her non-whore status to be murky. What is murky is the argument against the allegation.
Either you cannot comprehend the nuance or you are purposely engaging in intellectual dishonesty. Which is it? Are you reading what you wish to read or simply not understanding my words?
You are unnecessarily hung up on the age difference between Brown and Harris and exaggerating ( with feigned umbrage ) the income Harris achieved from the appointments.
Typical partisan logic with some misogyny thrown in for more smoke screen.
In 1994 Harris took a leave of absence from her Alemeda county DA duties( $82K ) and accepted a position on the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board for $97k.
If anyone here has ever lived in San Francisco or the Bay area, that's a no brainer career move considering the cost of living. Dude, everyone works 2 jobs to make ends meet in the Bay Area.
For whatever reason Harris resigned after 6 months and returned to the DAs office but Brown offered her another position on the California Medical Assistance Commission, a job that pays $72,000 a year but is not considered full time. They met once a month. She stayed on that Commission until 1998 when she joined the San Francisco DA office for @ $150K+.
She also served on the California Constitutional Revision Commission from 94 to 96 when that project was concluded,
salary unknown, no connection to Mr. Brown.
Mr Brown always exhibited the very definition of crony politics, awarding plum positions to friends, their wives and relatives.
Ms Harris was not alone in accepting a second job and I doubt Mr. Brown had sex with his male friends and their wives in exchange for his notorious appointments.
You can argue dollars and cents or dates but you should not base your opinions on a phony moral and partisan standard.
Calling any woman a ho is wrong. Doing so based on lies, religion and politics defines you, not your target.
Spot on was meant for Sean 1.2.7.
A lie. My point is that it is wrong to label as prostitute (or equivalent) anyone whose facts do not meet the definition of prostitute.
I have no problem including that in the description of Harris. Consider it included.
A lie. I am not citing the age gap as evidence of whoredom . It is a blatant lie to claim I am arguing that either of these women are prostitutes or that there is any evidence whatsoever that either is a prostitute.
I stated that I have seen more frequent attacks on Kamala in the short period she has been a subject in this forum than I have seen on Melania. And that is the case from what I have seen.
I have not said that Melania has not been attacked. Good grief man do you not comprehend that I included Melania as my R example because she is my prime example of an R woman in recent history who has been unfairly attacked? Buy a vowel.
The dishonesty is yours. You have moved the goalposts. I clearly described what I meant by her situation. You came back with a different, far more specific situation and pretend that this is what I was referring to. That is intellectual dishonesty at its finest (although your entire series of posts have been nothing but intellectual dishonesty). I stated that millions of women have had boyfriends or husband do them favors. My argument is that the mere fact that a boyfriend or husband has done something nice for a woman does not mean she is a 'ho'.
And yes there are all sorts of women who have risque photos. If you were in a court of law trying to defend a woman against the charge of prostitution, which condition would you prefer as the defense attorney: your client received a career boost from her boyfriend or your client has a history of public risque photos? The point I made, which you are desperately and dishonestly spinning is about the difficulty of the defense argument. I do not buy that you failed to comprehend the distinction.
Now are you going to try to claim that there are not millions of women whose boyfriend or husbands have done them favors? Or are you going to just invent another lie?
You are referring to this :
This is what I have referred to as opening a career door. Yes over five years she earned $400,000 ... approximately $80k a year? You do recognize that a career opportunity means securing a paying job. Do you think $80k per year is excessive? If not, what point do you think you are making? If so, are you suggesting this means she is a 'ho'?
The key here is why these details are important to you? Looks like you are trying to defend people calling Harris a 'ho'. Is Harris a 'ho' in your mind because she received more than a ring? Sure looks that way since you are making a big deal out of the specifics of Brown's favors.
Another lie. I did not argue that criticizing a politician for acts of corruption demeans women. You invented that from whole cloth. Incessant intellectual dishonesty. I argued that deeming a woman a prostitute (by any name) when she is not a prostitute but because of certain circumstances demeans all women with those same stated circumstance.
More simply stated: call a woman a 'ho' because her boyfriend did nice things for her or because she was a former risque model who married a wealthy man is a misogynistic comment that demeans all women with similar circumstances.
To wit:
If Melania is a 'whore' because she has risque photos and married a wealthy man then that implicitly states that all women with risque photos who married wealthy men are 'whores'.
If Kamala is a 'ho' because her boyfriend 25 years ago opened career doors for her and bought her things that implicitly states that all women whose boyfriend opens a career door and buys her things are 'hos'.
The stated circumstances are critical here. If someone calls a woman a prostitute by any name the natural response is to ask for the reasons. If the reason come back as (and this is typically what is stated): " her boyfriend gave her a nice government job to kick start her career " what would you say in reply? My reply is that receiving a nice government job from her boyfriend does not make a woman a 'ho'. That is an unfair characterization and demeans all women in similar circumstance.
If the reason comes back as: " she modeled in the nude and married a rich guy " then we have another unfair characterization that demeans all women who have modeled in the nude and married a rich guy.
Your series of posts have been nothing but intellectually dishonest spin and fabrication. It has been a while since I have seen such a density of lies strung together in a series of posts. Your posts have been an attack on my character using dishonesty as the tool.
Kathleen, honestly, questions like this just blow my mind.
In my article, I chose as examples an R woman and a D woman. These women were chosen because IMO they have been the two most visibly attacked women who have been unfairly labeled 'prostitutes' (by any other name).
So yes, of course Melania has been unfairly attacked for four years.
Now, explain to me how you could possibly think given all I have written here that I would not hold that position.
Because I have been dealing with members in this forum who are on a campaign of calling Harris a 'ho'. After now months of this behavior it finally hit me that I should write an article on misogyny. (Not an article on Harris, an article on misogyny.)
Why did I not write this article a month ago for that matter? The Harris attacks have been going on for a long time. I don't know. There are plenty of topics that I have not written articles on. We write articles when the inspiration hits us. We do not plan these things out in advance ... write an article on Melania now so that one can write one on someone else later. Articles are ad-hoc and based on inspiration.
And, as I noted to Sean, in my personal experiences I have seen the attacks on Melania but they were more infrequent than what is taking place with Harris. Maybe Melania was attacked more if we were to go through and count the attacks per week metrics. I could not say. But I can say that in my experiences the attacks on Harris in the short time she has been in the public eye have been more frequent.
And here is the key factor. There are untold millions of women who have boyfriends or husbands who have done favors for them such as:
When someone argues that a woman is a 'ho' simply because her boyfriend opened a career door for her (or equivalent non-prostitution fact) that is an attack on every women with similar circumstances. It is misogyny.
The repeated, unrepentant misogynistic attacks are what ultimately inspired me to write this article.
One more thing. I like Melania. I feel sorry for her being married to Trump. I suspect she would like to have the opportunity to take back her answer to his proposal for marriage. I dislike Kamala. I do not trust her and have serious issues with her politics.
The attempt by some to spin this article on misogyny into a partisan ploy is pretty pathetic.
I don't like Melania. The reason I don't like her is an outgrowth of her failure, inability, or politics which CAN NOT effectually stop or "check" her husband's worse tendencies relevant to our mutually-shared democracy.
Some here, including you, may remember that I consider the mates of candidates to be 'captured' figures to the politics of their spouses. Consequently, I do not drag them into the actions and policy statements of the elected official. This stands for the "first dude-elect" too.
Melania has crossed a line for me in a minimalist configuration. That is, I do consider or SEE her now politically, because as we all know she has a role to play in the decision-making of the Trumps as a family. The woman has power over her man, weakly or strongly. And, she will be associated with him in historical accounts in all his ignominiousness.
Yet, she is not on record as speaking up or out for the cause of clarity, justice, or peace and quiet for the nation. Indeed, appearances are she is "standing with her man."
I haven't seen any articles from you defending Harris, either, Kathleen. Why not? Why the double standard? Why, any time it is mentioned that it is unfair to call Harris a "ho", do you deflect to Melania? Why do you criticize TiG for not writing an article on the subject of unfair attacks against Melania when you, who so frequently bitch about them, never bothered to, either?
Have your fingers been broken?
I thought you were enlightened enough to not think in archaic terms, like a woman or a man holding power over their spouse.
No comment needed.
I'm not the one bitching about an article not having been written. YOU have a problem with it. YOU can do something about it, but YOU choose not to, and blame others for the same.
I was not suggesting that you were spinning this to make it political. It is others here who have done that. Sorry, I should have been clearer.
There are all sorts of people who could have written an article. In the past, they could have written an article on Melania and could have used Michelle Obama as the D who was attacked.
Why did I not write an article like this when Michelle Obama was under attack?
Why is it that nobody wrote an article using Michelle and Melania as their examples?
or asked for.
Then maybe you should have written one.
What are you complaining about, then?
And?
Passive aggressive attacks and threats will be called out, Kathleen. Don't like it? Don't do it.
Thing is Kathleen, the key attack on me when I have objected to misogynistic attacks on Harris have been personal ... trying to paint me as a hypocrite ... claiming that I never objected to the attacks on Melania.
Well that is factually incorrect, but I have focused more on Harris than Melania since, in my experience, the people I am dealing with are using it far more frequently than what I saw with Melania.
What they are doing by going personal is deflecting from the real problem. The real problem is that they are deeming a woman a prostitute (by any name) when she clearly is not. They are making unfair misogynistic comments that should offend every woman with similar circumstances as those they site as their 'reasons' for labeling the woman a prostitute (by any name).
So not only are the comments disgusting, but they engage in slimy tactics to deflect from their guilt.
Sandy has observed this happening and I fully understand why she objects to the inquiry. It is yet another question of my character. Nicely asked, but the same as with those who ask in an aggressive manner.
Yes. Nicely. But yes. However, if you noticed, I gave you the benefit of the doubt based on the fact that you were being nice. I responded to your question as if it were simply casual curiosity.
See it should not matter what I have written in the past. This article is about misogyny. It is not partisan and it certainly is is not about me. I would think every woman would agree with the argument I have made. I would expect most men to do likewise. Those objecting have, if you have noticed, done so as an attack on my character and have engaged in ugly intellectual dishonesty to do so.
No.
And I have the right to call out questions that are thinly (very thinly) veiled attacks.
That's how it works here.
Kathleen, seriously, what you wrote does not bother me in the slightest. But you asked if I agree with Sandy on the underlying reason for asking such a question, and I do.
Compared to what others have written, your comment is extremely mild. The problem is that you have essentially asked the same question that others have used with venom to justify their continued misogynistic comments.
We should all just move on from this.
I for one will certainly be looking forward to that nonpartisan "who's your favorite not a ho" article you'll soon be writing.
You aren't paying attention. TIG brought up the age difference with respect to Melania to justify his claim that it's "murky" whether she's a whore. He ignored the age issue with Harris, even though the age difference between her and her benefactor is greater. That's dishonest.
xaggerating ( with feigned umbrage ) the income Harris achieved from the appointm
no, I didn't. Can you math? Why don't you try and add up what those saleries came to?
Doing so based on lies, religion and politics defines you, not your target.
And falsely claiming I said something I didn't and , misrepresenting numbers to make a partisan point defines you.
Quotes, Sean?
[removed]
laiming that I never objected to the attacks on Melania
You make the statement that it's wrong, and then drag up reasons why it may be justifed and call the issue of whether she's a whore "murky"
IF you honestly believe it's wrong to call her a whore, you say it's wrong and leave it at that.
They are making unfair misogynistic comments that should offend every woman with similar circumstances as those they site as their 'reasons' for labeling the woman a prostitute (by any name).
The irony.. After you cite taking provacative photos as evidence she's whore!
but they engage in slimy tactics to deflect from their guilt
[removed]
You are trolling Sean.
You intentionally ignore that I was talking about the nature of the defense to be made. Repeated intellectual dishonesty. It is disgusting.
What do you think this article is about? Buy a couple of vowels because you are clueless. This article is easy to read. The point is obvious. If you cannot comprehend I am requesting we not engage in unfairly deeming women prostitutes (or equivalent) then you should write less and read more.
Is there no limit to your lying??
Do you even care about your credibility or is engaging in a bullshit attack more valuable to you than your own integrity?
Unbelievable.
Spin baby spin.
Your style of "debate" is dishonest. Should he have mentioned Alberta Martin as well?
The reason for the article are comments including many of yours from previous discussions on other articles.
You have used this trope in at least three older articles "S"
Wrong. Technically her career started as a US Senate intern in the 80's, then an Asst DA in Alameda County in 1990
3 or 4 years before meeting Brown, but don't let facts cloud your faux moral outrage.
It's not even grammatically correct. The least you could do when "schooling" all of us is to be grammatically correct
while blinded by politics...
Meanwhile Harris worked on one on one Commission for four years, resigned one after 6 months and retirned to the Alameda DAs office before taking on a third Commission ( not involving Brown ) for 2 years
at the pleasure and approval of Governor Pete Wilson (R) for 7 years and Grey Davis (D) for 1 year.
Maybe she was just qualified.......
and then went to the SF DA's before being promoted to her own office
and then to State AG despite her connections to brown
and again
and again to State Senator.
CA voters win, you lose.
Incredible. Here is what I wrote:
The case becomes more murky. Not whether or not she is a prostitute but rather the defensive argument against the allegations and innuendos.
As I have explained to you repeatedly, the sentence in blue is talking about the case - the defensive argument against her being a prostitute (by any name), not that I consider it murky that she is a prostitute (by any name). Clearly, for those who use their brains, I do not consider her a prostitute in any way and have put her as one of two examples of well-known women who have been unfairly deemed as a prostitute (by any name).
Here is a scenario. Imagine writing an article defending Melania against the allegation of being a prostitute (by any name). The first thing the opponents will do is raise her nude modeling. The next thing they will do is post various public picture of Melania in nude provocative poses. None of that is evidence that she is a prostitute, but it makes the defensive case more difficult. There is nothing, I am aware of, like that for Kamala.
This is simple to understand. But you nonetheless continue with the sea-lion bullshit that I think it is murky whether or not Melania is a whore.
You are flat out lying, repeatedly. And worse, you keep focusing on one comment while ignoring my article and all the other comments where I have made my easy to understand position clear.
Irony.
I accepted that; I simply did not realize Brown was that old. You got one thing right. But here you are still dishonestly trying to portray this as a deliberate deception.
It is not even debate. It is lie after lie in an attempt at character assassination. I do not remember the last time I have witnessed such a density of serial lies in a forum. Maybe Valerie from NV matches this?
I was confused for a long time about her once her husband compelled me to take stock of others in his inner circle. Donald is hurting the family . . legacy. Historians are going to have a field day for literally eons about the Trump family. Books unflatteringly will be written about this presidency and its attendants, and the Trumps (family politics).
Her marriage is her own beeswax. Her politics transcend her when people are swept up on the rocks out of the churning waters of Donald's presidential conduct and actions. People are desperately asking where is the family and who in it can speak to this man to calm him spiritually and emotionally? Only what comes back down from the chambers is more akin to a Jezebel asking that her husband be indulged further in his delusions.
You know a movie is eventually going to be out. This stuff is real life drama that matches that envisioned by a screenwriter.
In method, but not quantity.
Yet.
A tragic 'tale' indeed! Donald apparently is sold on the plan to live out the rest of his life in infamy (somewhere in our country).
And that is the point regarding Melania and the "kids." They are going to be in the official record of the Trump presidency. Therefore, they each have "standing" to speak out against the orientation they are being presented as-if different from Donald.
Raising the question: Why are the Trump's not publicly/privately separating their intentions from Donald's if there is a distinction worth pointing out.
Note: There is the niece who is doing so with her books about her uncle. In this, she splits off from him with public disapproval. With the Trump sons, they are as combative over "dad's professional life" as he is.
Melania's silence is acquiescence akin to the queen silently allowing the king to rent the kingdom from one end to the other, while attending to her in the wee hours upon her bed.
Being a dutiful wife carries national responsibilities when husband is behaving monstrously.
Reasonable people don't blame spouses for the actions of their spouse.
I wish no one did, but there are lots of unreasonable people--with an axe to grind.
It's practically writing itself. Maybe Oliver Stone will direct?
I did not know that.
I only know of his movies, but not about him personally.
And parents love 'baby.' Or, love their "babies." Each has a measure of love in the relationship if solid. So, wife and kids can tell the truth to aid in diminishing if not completely quieting the delusions of a parent. They can say something substantive about their own!
What is Donald going to do? Disinherit them (for telling him what the Lord loves)? He could do that. But, chances are he will view listening and internalizing as the only real choice.
Finally, let's be clear. Donald Trump is president. Melania is first lady. She will be viewed nationally and in history based on the actions, policies, and antics of her husband. It will not serve her to appear the doting wife who engaged her husband in his exploits of this nation. Better to stand apart clear apart from the man politically. That way, people won't confuse the "splash" on him as hers too.
See, there you go being completely reasonable again.
Can you even imagine if people had blamed Jackie Kennedy for her husband's transgressions?
Or Pat Nixon being blamed for Richard's actions?
Or Hillary for Bill's?
A woman can either speak her mind, especially when she has a point to make or she can agree to go along for the ride. That's reasonable. Millions of families outside the Trump family are being affected deeply by that family. She has standing - a place to come from - to speak about it either way. Whether she does or does not.
Melania will be associated with the attitudes and actions taken by her husband and/as herself!
By you. Meh.
Archaic thinking is so, well, old.
Time to join today and realize that women are no more responsible for what men do than men are responsible for what women do. And that includes spouses.
How much blame did you assign to Hillary Clinton for Bill's actions?
And did her use of a private email get blamed on Bill?
Well, of course not, because that would be wrong.
That's why Trump invited Bill's accusers to a debate, right?
Probably not even close to the reason why.
I suspect it had much more to do with Mrs. Clinton's responses to what those women accused her husband of doing.
What Bill did he did on his own. She also owns her own responses.
( you still have time to edit that, you have an hour )
As does Melania. From what I've seen, nobody really blames her for what Trump does. They blame her for what she does and for her support of what Trump does.
"I really don't care, do u?"
She spread the birther lies.
She defends his personal attacks on others, while claiming to run an anti-bullying campaign.
All on her.
No further comment necessary.
A fact no one is even disputing.
See posts #1.2.72 and 1.2.75.
true [enough--deleted]
Is that blaming her for what Trump does? Or is that blaming her for her reactions (which are generally either nonexistent or supportive) to what Trump does?
I don't know (or care) if Melania leaves Donald or not. I do care that she stands by his side (in lock-step) while he trashes our country in the extremes. Some can pretend that in this situation a wife is powerless, but I, we, know better. To be clear, I don't blame Melania for what Donald is doing, I do blame her for not going on public record with her view of what he is doing to us all.
Do you realize that people are breaking into Congress in the name of Trump, her husband?
Those posts speak for themselves.
I was just about to type that!
She is in an awkward position right now. There are substantial ramifications if she were to break with Trump and call him out. For her personally (and I am sure this is part of her thinking) her best move is to break free of him (if that is her intent) after he is out of office and the political complexities are no longer an issue.
That you see no distinction between the scope of Bill's sexual adultery while in office and Donald instigating a blood-drenched and deadly coup attempt on innocent congressional officers, staff, and other policing personnel is not the fault of anybody here. The comparison is pointless and a gross waste of time. And we have not even gotten to the matter of time and space relevancy.
Why are you supplying a link to this article?
Kathleen, let's sleep on it. (Smile.) I'm good, if you are good with it.
I supplied a link to a comment on this article.
ok.
I understand. However, as is the norm for Donald, he is ruining everything on the way out of the "china shop." People are graveyard dead all over the place, some even due to maskless-ness. Now, the Congress is warned of its exposure to the virus by maskless republicans harbored for several hours with aged representatives and senators.
If Melania can speak some sense into her husband, the time is now if not long before!
I do not think anyone on the planet can convince Trump to change his mind on anything.
Tig, I won't 'contest' that. However, this woman is the wife of Donald's old age and his likely last child; she means something to him. That said, I can not be clear the two people are not of like minds. (Sigh.)
Probably less than you are imagining. Trump uses people and cavalierly discards them the instant they no longer meet his needs. It is the nature of a malignant narcissist. It might be difficult to imagine a mind that works this way, but in business and politics this is how Trump has operated. Not so sure how well that translates into his personal life but I would bet heavily that it works the same way.
Hillary expressed much more defense (and disapproval) of her husband than the current First lady has.
I would say Melania just pretends it has not happened publicly.
I was sufficiently acquainted with 42 and his wife to know that
Bill probably hears about it several times a day.........
much to his chagrin.
Then, perhaps we have an indirect answer: Like-minded is probably where Melania resides, even if compelled to be! Transactional.
Yes, I think Melania is simply doing best to minimize pain for herself and Barron.
January 11, 2021
First Lady Melania Trump: Our Path Forward
Like all of you, I have reflected on the past year and how the invisible enemy, Covid-19, swept across our beautiful country. All Nations have experienced the loss of loved ones, economic pain, and the negative impacts of isolation.
As your First Lady, it has been inspiring to witness firsthand what the people of our great Nation will do for one another, especially when we are at our most vulnerable.
With nearly every experience I have had, I found myself carrying many individual’s stories home with me in my heart.
Most recently, my heart goes out to: Air Force Veteran, Ashli Babbitt, Benjamin Philips, Kevin Greeson, Roseanne Boyland, and Capitol Police Officers, Brian Sicknick and Howard Liebengood. I pray for their families comfort and strength during this difficult time.
I am disappointed and disheartened with what happened last week. I find it shameful that surrounding these tragic events there has been salacious gossip, unwarranted personal attacks, and false misleading accusations on me – from people who are looking to be relevant and have an agenda. This time is solely about healing our country and its citizens. It should not be used for personal gain.
Our Nation must heal in a civil manner. Make no mistake about it, I absolutely condemn the violence that has occurred on our Nation’s Capitol. Violence is never acceptable.
As an American, I am proud of our freedom to express our viewpoints without persecution. It is one of the paramount ideals which America is fundamentally built on. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect that right. With that in mind, I would like to call on the citizens of this country to take a moment, pause, and look at things from all perspectives.
I implore people to stop the violence, never make assumptions based on the color of a person’s skin or use differing political ideologies as a basis for aggression and viciousness. We must listen to one another, focus on what unites us, and rise above what divides us.
It is inspiring to see that so many have found a passion and enthusiasm in participating in an election, but we must not allow that passion to turn to violence. Our path forward is to come together, find our commonalities, and be the kind and strong people that I know we are.
Our country’s strength and character have revealed themselves in the communities that have been impacted by natural disasters and throughout this terrible pandemic that has affected all of us. The common thread in all of these challenging situations is American’s unwavering resolve to help one another. Your compassion has shown the true spirit of our country.
As I said over the summer, it is these defining moments that we will look back and tell our grandchildren that through empathy, strength, and determination, we were able to restore the promise of our future. Each of you are the backbone of this country. You are the people who continue to make the United States of America what it is, and who have the incredible responsibility of preparing our future generations to leave everything better than they found it.
It has been the honor of my lifetime to serve as your First Lady. I want to thank the millions of Americans who supported my husband and me over the past 4 years and shown the incredible impact of the American spirit. I am grateful to you all for letting me serve you on platforms which are dear to me.
Most importantly, I ask for healing, grace, understanding, and peace for our great Nation.
Every day let us remember that we are one Nation under God. God bless you all and God bless the United States of America.
Sincerely,
Melania Trump
Source:
Those salaries in the Bay area is barely enough to make ends meet. The cost of living is so much greater in CA than say, in MI, WI, or any other Midwest states. I love when people tell me that I could make so much more money going somewhere else, but the cost of living in those places that would pay me huge wages would negate any kind of increase that I might receive. Cost of living is a funny thing.
Exactly.
My sister and BIL lived in San Jose. She was a branch manager for Wells Fargo, and he worked at another bank as VP of loans.
They moved to Texas, took about a 30% pay cut, and lived far better than in California. They payed $1500 a month rent on a house in San Jose(got a deal because the landlord worked at Wells Fargo and took a sabbatical to Israel), bought a nice house here with payments around $700 (this was 20 years ago) and could afford to do just about whatever they wanted.
It does no good to earn 30% more if it is all ate up plus more by cost of living.
I don't know what kind of relationships you've been in, but as a woman that's been in a marriage in which my [now ex] husband never considered that he might be wrong (ever), would NEVER listen to anything I had to say in regard to his behavior or his actions. Dealing with egotistical narcissism is very difficult.
That is because she is Slovenian, and even though she has become an American citizen, she really does not see America as her country. She can always go back to Slovenia and live very happily, so Trumps trashing America likely falls under her famous "I don't care...." statement.
That's interesting, but still she will be in our history books alongside a miserable "tyrant" named Donald! Worse, if she agrees with what "hubbie" is doing to us. . . oh wow!
Okay. What, if anything, do you make of Melania's statement today @1.2.109? I'd be interested to read about it.
Most of my coworkers lived a minimum of 2 hours away, beyond the hills of Oakland and as much as 3 hours away, it was insane.
I don't make assumptions as to what someone might mean by a quote out of context, nor do I nit pick every little thing someone says to overanalyze the perceived meaning.
I couldn't imagine that commute. When would they sleep?
?
Lunch
and
breaks
and dinner
That's rough. No way I could do that!
I respect that coming from you, a call for unity. Not from tRump or anyone who supports tRump, who have been demonizing the left/democrats/progressives for far too long now and were emboldened by tRump.
To be clear, I am not really calling for unity, per se. My request is civility when it comes to misogynistic labeling. Let's stop calling women whores, etc. when they do not deserve that label. It is not just an insult to the target, but to every woman on the planet whose circumstances are similar.
A whore is a prostitute. Unless a women is engaging in sexual activities with a variety of men expressly for direct payment of her services, she is not a whore. Neither Melania nor Kamala are whores.
Allrightythen
And could have for the last 5 years when it came to women on the other side. It’s only when a similar type of comment gets directed at one of their own that actually has some factual basis in the life of said person that we get this appeal. Where were you all then?
I wrote this article because the 'ho' labeling has reached a level that I consider to be well over the top. It is now a deliberate mantra.
You, and everyone who behaves similarly, should cease unfairly referring to women as 'ho' (or equivalent). It is misogynistic and, given you claim to be a devout Christian, a direct contradiction to the tenets of Christianity.
Right here asking people to stop and not join them.
Out of all of the tens of thousands of comments I have had to read,
Teaxn1211 is the only member I can remember who has consistently condemned these types of remarks no matter the target or the party affiliation or religion.
You unfortunately are one of the top offenders.
That's sad.
This should be a duh.
Sadly... you are right that it needs repeating
Over & over & over again....
But, some on NT will never learn - sadly.
Women. They are our planet's and humanity's creative engines for life. Each individually empowered to make a 'thing' that was not come into being. Yet, some of the things women make have high-grade disrespect for their nature no matter the state of play.
but to go to whore is yet again demeaning all women who marry into wealth or power as simply prostituting themselves. It is also raw misogyny.
Melania's nude photos of laying around with other nude women is basically soft porn. To call that out is not demeaning to all women or misogyny. I don't understand where you get that conclusion.
I have not said there was anything wrong with calling out her soft porn.
My argument is that she should not be called a 'whore' because that does not meet the definition of the word 'prostitute'. Soft porn is not in and of itself 'prostitution'.
That would mean that every woman who has shown 'too much' skin is a prostitute. Since that is not the case, calling Melania a whore for her past showing of her body demeans all women who have done likewise.
You have misunderstood my argument. Feel free to ask clarifying questions.
You say this demeans all women. I don't see it.
I said that unfairly calling a woman a whore demeans all women with similar circumstances.
My two examples for clarity have been Kamala and Melania. So let's go with Kamala for now. When someone calls her a 'ho' simply because her boyfriend opened a career door for her, they are ipso facto saying that any woman who has had similar favors done for her by her boyfriend or husband is a 'ho'.
Let's now say that 25 years ago you had a one year relationship with a man (your boyfriend). Let's say that he bought you a car during your relationship. Does that make you a 'ho'?
No, of course not. I just don't think calling out one woman's behavior as whorish, or slutty or whatever, is automatically demeaning to all other women.
Neither do I. My point is much more specific than that. Unfairly is the operative word and similar circumstances is the operative phrase.
I agree with you Pat. Demeaning someone who is deserving doesn't demean all women.
Then just try discussing AOC or Ilhan Omar...
Same ones defending Melania call them hos.
Correct. This article is not arguing that it is wrong to demean a woman. It argues that it is wrong to unfairly label a woman as a whore (or equivalent) since that implicitly labels all women who share her circumstances as whores (or equivalent).
In short, I recommend people not call a woman a whore (or equivalent) unless she meets the definition of prostitute.
I defend the First Lady and have never called them whores.
As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about or why you're talking to me
I've never seen anyone calling those in the "squad" hos. I've heard plenty of calls of them being idiots, which seems mostly true for Omar and AOC.
Then again, I don't know anyone stupid enough to sleep with them.
And how would nude photos equate to being a whore again?
Please explain your logic on that one.
Well, since studies show that sexuality has a large psychological component and she was being paid to sexually stimulate strangers MENTALLY with her nude photos, sooooo.
Whore is not a phrase I believe in. I see nothing derogatory about sex for money or dinner or a safe home or whatever but Melania did take money to sexual stimulate strangers.
I see her as less whore and more gold digger.
The use of the term "whore" is just flat out wrong to apply to her or Kamala Harris--period.
What of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Nancy Pelosi or Ilhan Omar or Maxine Watters?
Do they deserve to be abused by sexists or racists or misogynists? Or, are they fair game?
My guess is that Texan was sticking with the example in question. Given his political views, if he disagrees with the attacks on Harris he quite likely disagrees with the attacks on other women who are unfairly characterized as whores regardless of their affiliations.
let me see if I can put this in such a way that all who read it will be clear:
I think it is wrong to call women whores when clearly they are not.
I hope you get that now.
It should be noted that simply criticizing a woman is not in itself sexist. Often, a legitimate criticism is dismissed as sexist or racist because the focus of the criticism is female or a person of color. Being female or brown doesn’t (or at least it shouldn’t) shield someone from legitimate criticism.
I don't approve of any of these misogynistic attacks. Occasionally I will call out both liberals or conservatives for using them. Other times I just weary of it and shake my head and move on.
One of the problems with it is that it distracts from what might be a legitimate criticism. You can criticize a person without going after her sex. So for example, as noted above,
Their affair was a bit of scandal all by itself as Brown was married at the time, although he had been separated from his wife for several years. That's probably one reason why people go for the "ho" comment.
However, what Brown did for Harris goes way beyond a boyfriend doing something nice for his girlfriend. Giving flowers or chocolates is nice. Giving someone a job is another level. Doing it as a public servant is nepotism and corrupt.
Brown was Speaker of the California Assembly from 1980-1995. The two dated in the early 90s, with the affair ending in '95. During this time, Brown placed Harris on both the California Medical Assistance Commission and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. By 2003, Brown was mayor of San Francisco and he endorsed her for DA. That in itself, is not corrupt, but it speaks to continuing support that was always felt to be more about their personal relationship than it would have been about any objective assessment of her abilities.
As an aside, Brown was well known for appointing his friends to important posts. Harris wasn't the only recipient of his generosity.
There are probably several worse examples of this kind of thing, but for some, it belies the notion that Harris worked her way up on the strength of her own merit.
Still, it's not warranted or even necessary to call her a ho for it. And tactically, if you are trying to garner respect for the criticism, it's counterproductive and distracting. Harris and everyone around her jumps to her defense for the sexist attack, and the corruption charge is dismissed in the court of public opinion out of sympathy - the merits of the criticism never being properly addressed. People who present the attack that way shoot their own cause in the foot.
Melania Trump managed to turn legions of liberals into social conservatives.
And that is the key.
Well you had me in 100% agreement right up to the last sentence.
That you think that's true, is a sad enough judgement on all modern American men, let alone liberals.
I know no liberal with pictures of Melania in the garage, but two conservatives who favor the gold pics in and on one of the Trump aircraft.
Funny, actress/comedienne Zsa Zsa Gabor was never my cup of tea, and while there are plenty of comparisons to Melania, Melania didn't
marry 9 times up the ladder to a Hilton. Maybe Melania took a more direct route, lol, but she had something in common, one child.
Like Ivanna Trump she claimed her husband raped her.
She commented: "I am a marvelous housekeeper: Every time I leave a man I keep his house."
So does Melania deserve to be called a ho? Unless you are ultra orthodox religious, no.
Unfortunately we have a few people who have confused religion with partisan politics.
So Michelle, Kamala and Melania have all been targets, I imagine Jill is next.
Sad that we need to discuss this at all.
Maybe you misunderstood me? My point was that all of a sudden in 2016, liberals started being offended at the idea of a woman taking off her clothes to pose for pictures. Traditionally, it is social conservatives who are bothered by that kind of thing.
And the social conservatives (at least those who are dominated by partisanship) downplayed these pics of the first Lady. Yet some of them gleefully call Harris a 'ho'.
Ok, I accept that.
Americans were OK with JFK diddling Marilyn Monroe but would not accept her as a First Lady.
Yes, the girl on girl nude pictures made many liberals move the standards, or at least establish where they were
as opposed to conservative beliefs.
Horseshit
Creating false history is a typical fascist propaganda technique.
That is not my intention nor is it what I wrote.
My intentions should be clear by the words I used. We should not be unfairly characterizing women as whores, etc. because that is misogynistic and is offensive to all women in similar situations.
Calling a woman a whore because she married a wealthy older man implicitly declares all women who marry wealthy older men to be whores.
Calling a woman a whore whose boyfriend did her a career favor implicitly declares all women whose boyfriends do them a career favor as whores.
You can enumerate the rest of the possibilities.
My rebuttal to you is: why don't you just read my words and take them as given instead of presuming ulterior motives?
Liberals weren't offended by the nude pics, per se. What was offensive were the attacks on Michelle Obama for wearing a sleeveless dress, while conservatives insisted that Melania was "classy" and that her sexualized pics were "art". I have to say, if Melania made libs into conservatives, then she also turned conservatives into libs with a new appreciation for "art".
I wasn't offended by the nude pics at all, I could care less. What I am offended by is the republican's double standards and hypocrisy . . . .
I recall at least two NT seeds that were all about photos of Michelle Obama walking in dresses where the conservatives were claiming the pleat shadows proved she had a dick. Personally find that far more offensive than anyone calling out Melania as a woman who slept with a fat greasy accused sexual predator for money. I didn't hear many on the right coming to Michelle's defense about that and it was both misogynist and racist.
Yep. Many of those Michele Obama photos were more than a shadow. They are doctored images (fake news).
I hear that happens when fish look through layers of water with different temperments...
Thank the stars that problem has moved on to Parler & Donald
There will always be women who volunteer to be photographed in soft porn scenarios with a sultry fuck-me look on their face. Nobody is condemning them, they just don’t belong in the position of First Lady. Many a political career has been cut short due to past historical associations. That’s hardly a controversial statement. When candidates are vetted, particularly ones who are intended to represent the religious right, part of the process of whittling them down is to be the least controversial choice in order to maintain a smooth campaign. That’s not rocket science. It says a lot that there was zero consideration for Trump in this area.
It’s an embarrassment to the nation that teenage boys are whacking off to naked pictures of the President’s wife, who btw is technically old enough that she could be his granddaughter. I totally disagree that she should get a pass and I totally disagree with any comparison with Kamala. Kamala was not my personal choice for VP, but come on - a ho?! That is a pathetic, embarrassing reach. If her past makes her a ho, then what would she be if her past were anything close to Melania’s? A mega super slut ho?
I don't think Melania has done any photo sessions since becoming First Lady.
We don't condemn people today for smoking pot twenty years ago. That was illegal. Posing nude was not.
Regardless, Melania has a bigger problem than her nude photos. That being her US citizenship privilege, and that of her parents. How insanely ridiculous is it that she is considered to have “extraordinary abilities” that would be an asset to this country? Married to a notorious ogre who made illegal immigration a central plank of his administration, yet she obviously received privileges nobody else of her level of intelligence has received. She barely speaks English herself, which is an enormous peeve to Trump’s racist followers. Then her parents came along for the ride under the same exact rules that he and his racist administration have railed against from day one. Then she publicly displays her indifference to the plight of those who are truly in need of help. It’s disgusting.
Funny how one of the only times when I could clearly understand what she was saying was when she said 'Fuck Christmas'
' It’s disgusting.'
and deplorable
no. some very fine folks seem to have a problem with her photos.
but you go right ahead blathering on and beating that dead horse of immigration.
she us a US citizen. like it or not, it won't change because you don't like it.
[deleted]
[Texan is not the topic.]
I have a God, so I don't put anyone on a pedestal.
perhaps one day you will recognize that civility is being discussed, not your personal opinions and wild guesses about me.
Then why don't you tell Congress to get rid of the EB-1/2/3 programs? They're all fake anyhow. Ya got the money/connections or both, you got the EB-1/2/3 visa.
I’d rather have conservatives just admit their massive hypocrisy and treat actual people in need as well as they treat pretty people with zero to offer this country.
C'mon Hal! You can't just toss that aside.
And you know how citizenship works. Melania is a citizen. She has the rights of all citizens.
... and I'd bet that she's more anxious for this all to end than most of us.
Do you disagree that the process of vetting POTUS candidates and whittling them down to the one with the best odds of winning would involve the reputation of a spouse as one of the metrics? It didn’t happen in Trump’s case, but in any other ‘normal’ candidate it’s SOP.
The first First Lady I seriously remember is Jacqueline Bouvier.
I'm not sure that she or anyone since would have moved the needle significantly.
Although he won the election, Hillary Clinton was considered to be an impediment for Bill's campaign, as I recall.
She had an image as "a very smart woman" ... "maybe the real brains of the couple".
For many people, those are pretty negative.
So I guess my idea for a movie...Suicide Slasher Sluts (The SSS) would be a thumbs down...
Contrary to right wing belief, the talk of Melania came about for one reason only. The Christian conservative right came out in full support of the woman despite having condemned others for less.
It was to show their complete hypocrisy (it is still on display).
I remember a rock group called Cycle Sluts From Hell that played at a club called Hammerjacks back in the day. We went to see them just because we wanted to see who would call themselves Cycle Sluts From Hell
They sound MAGA.
That was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy before MAGA even existed.
Hammerjacks was like the CBGB of Baltimore from what I understand. I live in MD now but not back when it was open. I do go to a lot of shows in Bmore, or used to pre-covid anyways.
It was an all right club back in the day, when I used to go clubbing. Years later, they really went downhill, were playing the same taped music from like 10 years before.
Out of curiosity, if you don't mind saying, what area do you live in? I'm in Columbia.
I remember going to a club in DC back in those same days when Wendy (I think her name was) Williams and the Plasmatics were there.
I went to school in Carroll County.
I’m in Frederick. You’re lucky to have Merriweather so close. We have to drive to any bigger venue.
Small world!
Merriweather is less than a mile from my condo. When the conditions are right, I can hear the concerts from my deck. It's been a while since I've been though. Probably James Taylor was the last time I went there.
Last time I was there was years and years ago. Saw Aerosmith and it rained.
That's the only thing that sucks with an outdoor venue like Merriweather unless you have pavilion seats and even then during a nasty storm, it could be unpleasant.
We had lawn seats with James Taylor - we were at the top of the hill - a long way away from the stage - had to use binoculars.
I remember seeing Franke Valli and the Four Seasons at Pier 6 and it was really raining hard the whole night.
Another empty plea for civility. Yes, that is a worthy objective. But these pleas for civility and respect ring hollow when any opposition is declared to be sexist.
We already know what is coming. Any criticism of Kamala Harris will be deemed sexist or racist. She uses those as weapons well. Media perfected the racist rant for Obama. Funny she now works for a person she deemed a racist. 🙄
Yes, Joe Biden loaded his cabinet with 'race cards' in expectation that Republicans would retain control of the Senate. Biden set the stage to label any Republican opposition as racist, sexist, and xenophobic.
But Democrats control Congress. The only thing Republicans can do is filibuster in the Senate so political pressure will force Democrats to end the Senate filibuster. The Democratic base will be expecting Democrats to do what they have promised to do.
Kamala Harris trying to accuse Democrats of sexism will only fracture the party. That excuse is off the table. Democrats no longer have any place to hide.
That might be true, but you are commenting in my article which requests that women not be unfairly labeled as 'ho', whore, etc.
Do you agree that women should not be labeled as such or do you disagree?
Not the point.
Let's try a very specific, simply question: Should people label Harris a 'ho'?
But it's precisely the point. The point is to preemptively justify accusing opponents of sexism.
Kamala Harris isn't more qualified than many, many other possible candidates. In fact, Harris' public record includes questionable policy decisions and policy stances. Harris was selected to be the Vice Presidential candidate because she is a woman of color with Asian ancestry.
Objectively, Kamala Harris is Vice President because of sexism.
Hey Nerm. Are you trying to tell me what my point is? If so, you are wrong. This article does not exist to justify labeling opponents of Harris sexist. This article is quite clear.
If you cannot make an argument without presuming your own facts then do not make an argument.
I believe that is known as "whining before getting beaten".
That's what they are for you?
... and every President since Washington has been a man because of sexism.
Not if we are honest.
Some will be and some won't be valid.
As do some women, some men, some blacks, some actors...
Sad that that is your opinion...
No funnier than the Senators like Ted Cruz who sucked it up after the personal insults to them and their families
from Donald in the primaries. Politics make for strange bedfellows.
Most people are either 'glass half empty' or 'glass half full',
why is your glass always so empty...
No, it isn't.
That's your opinion, period.
True of all candidates.
Possibly true and again true of most people.
No, sorry to tell you that, like President Obama, she was selected IN SPITE of being a woman of color.
Well, not objectively at all. Subjectively you are entitled to your opinion.
Who knows? A Biden-Garland ticket might have won by 12 million votes...we'll never know.
Yeah you are right. She is no better than them.
Of course it's my opinion. The article is very similar to others I've seen in the past. And I've stated an opinion about the article, not about the author.
You've expressed opinions about me personally, making me the topic of discussion. Is that civil discourse?
Yes, objectively. Joe Biden stated that he would choose a woman as Vice Presidential candidate during the primaries. Biden also promised during the primaries that he would select women and minorities for cabinet and high level government positions. According to Biden, gender and minority status was the prerequisite.
After Joe Biden won the nomination, the political speculation was which woman would be picked for Vice President. The choice of gender was made before any vetting or interviews. Why is that not sexist?
Basically everything is sexist, from whom you marry to which car you buy, right?
It's an empty plea coming from the 'right' . . . y'all are just mouthing the words. You don't give a shit about anyone but yourselves.
I am taking your comment personally given I am the author.
How difficult is it for you, personally, Nerm, to not label a woman a 'ho' when she clearly is not a prostitute? Where does that request ring hollow? Have you ever read anything from me where I have labeled a woman a whore, 'ho', slut, etc.?
I don't do that. Do you?
But I have opposed bad ideas floated by women. And I have been labeled sexist for opposing what I considered a bad idea. Accusing me of opposing an idea 'just because it's a woman' isn't civil discourse and isn't honest discourse.
You deemed my article an empty plea. What, specifically, do you mean by that? I ask because is seems like you are trying to suggest that I am being dishonest simply because I am focused on misogyny in this article.
Clear it up.
It's an empty plea because it's premised upon a presumption of guilt based upon stereotypes. Opponents to Harris' political stances will be labeled sexist without ever having said anything about Harris being a woman.
The scurrilous and salacious statement "Kamala Harris is not a 'ho'" deliberately loads the question with assumptions and presumptions that those opposing Harris are guilty of sexism. Objectively, Kamala Harris is Vice President and it doesn't matter if she is a sex worker or not.
WTF is that supposed to mean? Read my article Nerm and stick with what I actually wrote. Don't add your own words and then argue as if I wrote them.
No it does not. This is a response to a mantra attack on Harris claiming that she is a 'ho'. If she was not being labeled a 'ho' then I would not make the statement.
Again, you are inventing motivations for me. That is offensive. Stick with what I wrote. If you have a problem with it then honestly debate what I wrote. If you are confused about my meaning then ask a question.
But do not presume and add value and then present this as if it were my argument. That is intellectually dishonest (and slimy).
I'm calling out the politics presented in the article. How long has Nancy Pelosi been in charge? What about the Squad? What about Janet Yellen? What about Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, and Madeline Albright? What about Kelly Craft, Nikki Haley, and Susan Rice? Many more women in positions of authority could be named but these are sufficient to make the point.
Kamala Harris isn't the first woman or first person of color to hold a position of authority in the Federal government.
Your article makes an empty political plea, using scurrilous language, that completely ignores all the women who have been or are in positions of authority within the Federal government.
Is Kelly Craft a 'ho' because Donald Trump appointed her Representative to the United Nations? That's a loaded question that doesn't promote civility. That question is nothing more than a cheap political trick.
This is an apolitical article. This article is not about politics. I purposely used examples from both sides to ensure it was apolitical. The only politics in this article is in your mind. Don't blame me for what you imagine.
The only way this article is political is if you invent an alternate reality.
What, I am supposed to list all women who have been attacked? You are being ridiculous. Melania and Kamala are currently two extremely visible women who have been attacked in a misogynistic fashion.
Water is wet. The Earth is not flat. Death is inevitable.
Only in your mind. You continue to invent your own reality and blame me for it. This is an article Nerm. It is not intended to give historical treatment to every woman who has been in a position of authority within the federal government. You get that, right?
Then why did you ask it? What value is it for you to invent your own scenario and pretend that this is what I am discussing in this article?
Really??? Then let me quote your article: "As more women appear in positions of political power or influence we see more language that seeks to demean them personally."
That's certainly not an apolitical sentiment.
Then the sentiment is loaded with: "Often this demeans them in a sexual sense. But if the allegation is not justified for the woman in question, such language has the effect of demeaning all women."
If that is so, then labeling a man as 'misogynist' or 'sexist' has the effect of casting guilt upon all men.
Women have appeared in positions of political influence, power, and authority for a long time. It's not that more women are appearing in these positions; it's that they are being treated differently. What has changed is that allegations of sexism, made by women, has become a political weapon used against political opponents.
Calling a woman in a position of political power and authority a 'ho' is no less civil than accusing a man of misogyny.
Of course it is. Mentioning power is not a political statement. A political statement would make a comment for or against a particular political position. This article is about misogyny. Buy a vowel. Read the article.
You are off on a different topic. Focus on the point. Either you agree that women who are not prostitutes should not be labeled as such or you disagree. Which is it? That is the topic.
If a man calls a non-prostitute a prostitute (using the various labels) simply because her boyfriend or husband gave her something then that man has made a misogynistic comment.
You get that, right?
I read the article. The article is a political piece attempting to preemptively create talking points.
Yeah, right. The political play is that when someone says Harris is selling out the United States, the left responds by claiming that implies Harris is being called a 'ho'. and begin accusing people of being sexist.
This ain't the first time the left has made the very same call for civility. All those past diatribes have proven to be fake. Why is this time different? All those throwing spittle-spewing outrage are usually the most uncivil.
Ask the phony anti-fascists on this board about civility.
I am the author and I already told you that my intention was entirely apolitical. You insisting that you know my intentions (given there is zero evidence to support your claim) is essentially calling me a liar.
Feel free to comment on the content of the article. If instead you simply want to continue to demand that my article on misogyny is a political article then I advise you to go elsewhere.
Either you have been unable to understand TiG's words, or you are intentionally misinterpreting them. Which is it?
I cannot read your mind, I can only read the article you authored. Whatever you may have intended, the article is expressing a political opinion using political language and pushing political buttons to politically defend Kamala Harris.
I'm not calling you anything. You, on the other hand, are claiming the ability to read my mind. And you are illustrating the point I'm making about these calls for civility.
Joe Biden stated during the primaries he would choose a woman for Vice Presidential candidate. Biden chose gender as a prerequisite before winning the nomination or vetting a list of candidates. Biden stated he would choose a woman for Vice President as an expedient way to be competitive with women running for the Democratic nomination. Biden opened the door for salacious accusations of political prostitution with his own promises made during the primaries.
Within that context (and, yes, in my opinion) the article's call for civility is a political attempt to shift attention away from Biden's pandering to curry support and shift attention toward political opposition.
The point is that I have repeatedly told you what was on my mind when I wrote the article. So you do have the info. Further there is nothing in what I wrote that is political. The content is strictly a point on misogyny (a point that you continue to derail). Your imagination is not fact. Just because someone could be engaging in political posturing does not mean I am. And I am not. I am no fan of Harris.
And I have told you repeatedly it is not.
Last chance. Cease telling me the intent of my article. It is both a repeated lie and is nothing short of trolling.
A woman is free to do as she pleases with her body. Sex workers are not whores. What about the Johns? Why are they not treated with the same social stigma as women?
Given you are making a top level comment, you are implicitly replying to my article.
So why are you talking of sex workers? My article makes no mention of that. Why are you asking about Johns? This article is not trying to deal with all the inequities of life. It is focused on one clear point: the misogynistic labeling of women.
Again, I am interpreting your comment as a reply to my article (versus a reply to some comment) because it is a top level thread.
It's called deflection . . .
Is your seed about labeling women hos, whores or not?
It is a demeaning, angry, ugly label regardless who the target it is.
People use it for that purpose only no matter their position in society, First Lady, VP....
I do find it ironic that those who feel women should be free to use their body as they please use it frequently.
Yes, Sunshine, this article (it is not a seed) is about unfairly labeling women as hos, whores, etc. That should be crystal clear.
I agree. Do you recognize how unfairly labeling any woman as such implicitly labels all women who share similar circumstances? In the case of Melania, all women who had a risque past and who married a wealthy man old enough to be her father (even though they have been married for 16 years) are 'whores'. In the case of Harris, which is even more clearly wrong, all women whose boyfriend opens a career door are implicitly 'hos'.
The topic of another article.
I think I have made it quite clear that no women should be labeled a whore regardless of who they are.
It isn’t “fair” to any women. It is a deragorty term not a term for a profession.
seems you just want to make it political by comparing Melania to Kamala.
It isn’t right for either.
geez
Are you purposely trying to not understand? It is necessary for me to distinguish between labeling a woman a whore who is not a prostitute from labeling a woman a whore who is a prostitute. The former is a misogynistic attack on all women with similar circumstances; it is labeling women who are not prostitutes as if they are. That is the point. This article was not written to argue that we ban the word 'whore'.
Seems to me you are confused. I put forth both Melania and Kamala to make the same statement for both political sides so as to not make it political. These are the two most public women right now who have been attacked and deemed prostitutes (by any other name). They are the obvious two choices. You see that, right?
Well, gee, no shit. Apparently you did not read my article. Here, at least read the summary:
You agree with the point of my article yet you are trying hard to find ways to disagree. Interesting.
Apparently you didn't read it or your comments..
no... read your own comments. You are arguing that Harris is less deserving of being called a whore than Trump not whether they should be or not. What your points are is who has been treated more unfairly.
Calling any woman a whore is over the top. That is something you don't seem to comprehend.
If you are stating that there is a situation that is unfair, then you must be stating that there is a situation that it is fair to call a woman a whore who meets the criteria that you set...receiving money for sex. Again, you do not even realize that you are condoning calling women whores because of the criteria you set in your article.
And here you specifically recommend it...
Again, It isn't your point of your article and comments that women shouldn't be called whores. Your argument is that Harris is less deserving of the label.
Of course I don't agree with the points of your arcticle. Who would agree that there is a situation that a women should fairly be called a whore?
So your rebuttal is that I did not read my own article or my own comments?
What utter nonsense. I have argued that neither should be called a whore.
What you intentionally refuse to comprehend is that the absurdity of the allegation varies per circumstance. That was my point. For example, compare the following:
Do you truly see no difference in absurdity between these two claims? Do you comprehend that the argument defending Daniels against this charge would be more difficult than that defending Rice?
You are spinning. It is a disgusting display of intellectual dishonesty.
To claim that is the point of my article is to evidence blatant intellectual dishonesty. My argument is not that women should be called whores, but rather than when a woman who clearly is not a prostitute is unfairly labeled as such, that is misogyny. As I have already explained, this article is not about asking that the word 'whore' be banned. Feel free to write that article. This article is about labeling a non-prostitute with a synonym for prostitute. See?
What is truly disturbing is the fact that you feel there are different levels of women who can fairly be called whores. I wouldn’t call Rice or Stormy a whore.
I remember a time when libs would be outraged about calling sex workers whores or prostitutes.
Doubling down isn’t working for you. You just sound worse.
You just refuse to comprehend. Let's be more stark, crystal clear, and remove the word 'whore' and use the synonym 'prostitute'. That eliminates the nuances of slang and gets right to the core:
Is Kristin Davis a prostitute or not? Is it unfair to call her a prostitute?
How about when 'That' woman, declares as much. SHE has labeled herself a 'WHORE', because She Demands monetary payment for sexual 'services', do you 'feel ' a woman whom has prostituted herself, has no right to declare herself a 'whore '/?? because i'm assuming you do not call ANY a whore, how can you tell another, they are not, if they feel they are...?
Hos/whores/prostitutes are all degrading labels. Not sure why you think prostitute is any better.
You fail to comprehend that calling any woman any of the labels is degrading. You seem to be hung up on the word “fairness”. It isn’t “fair” in any situation regardless of her path in life.
Trying to make the argument that it is more plausible for some women to be called a ho/whore/prostitute over others is just flat out misogynist, and I am truly surprised at the lack of self-awareness in your article and your comments which I laid out for you and you still fail to understand.
Wow you really need to check yourself.
Bullshit. It is obviously degrading to call anyone a prostitute. Cease with the strawman nonsense and answer the question:
Is Kristin Davis a prostitute or not?
What would you prefer? Lady of the evening, sex worker, a courtesan...
Sunshine demands that it is unfair to designate any woman a prostitute (by any name). That logic, however, would mean that either she does not recognize that prostitutes do exist on the planet or that she deems it unfair to designate a prostitute a prostitute.
For clarity, I offered a definition of prostitution in my article:
If a person engages in relatively indiscriminate sexual activity, in general with someone who is not a spouse or a friend, in exchange for immediate payment in money or other valuables it seems fair to designate that individual a prostitute.
And, per the point in my article, it is unfair to designate as a prostitute, a person who does not meet this definition (or equivalent).
Looks like my question has you stumped.
This is even easier.
If a person is a prostitute, is it fair to designate them as such?
I would guess that she made a lot more money behind a typewriter,than in a bed.
We need someone to help Sunshine understand that prostitutes (individuals who engages in relatively indiscriminate sexual activity, in general with someone who is not a spouse or a friend, in exchange for immediate payment in money or other valuables) do exist and it is both correct and fair to designate them as 'prostitutes'.
And, by contrast, it is unfair to wrongly designate someone as a prostitute (or any equivalent label) if they do not meet the definition.
Questions: Do you think prostitution is a real thing?
If so, do you merely object to use of the word "prostitute", and is there terminology you prefer?
If not, how would you define that "path in life"?
Let's see how you see things.
Given you clearly know that prostitutes exist, if someone is a prostitute, is it unfair to designate them as such? It is derogatory. But is it unfair?
In other words, is a prostitute a prostitute?
If it is fair to designate a prostitute a prostitute then it would be unfair to designate a non-prostitute a prostitute.
Indeed.
Thus my opinion is that it is wrong to unfairly deem a woman a prostitute (or one of its slang synonyms).
Looks more like arguing just for the sake of arguing with you, as what your article is about is very evident, not confusing at all to an intelligent person.
It's tiresome and tedious, and wastes time when constructive and intelligent conversation can be instead be had and be more beneficial to others.
I am as repulsed by men who pay for sex as I am women who accept payment for sex. No double standard here.
OLBS
Only Losers Buy Sex.
"Look at those Olbs trolling the red light district, can you get more disgusting?"...
... you've never been married?
Labels are a useful tool to heighten emotions and thus avoid meaningful conversations on a given subject.
It is a tactic that is particularly useful to partisans to divide people and maintain power over the masses.
In order to have civility, we have to have a civil society that is not governed by special interests that make their millions/billions by exploiting their fellow human beings.
Ho/whore in the political sense can be applied to male/female politicians who will sell their ethics/morals for a buck to the highest bidder. It doesn't have to be proven on any level.
When it comes to politics, when did facts ever matter? It is only about power and control.
Respect is earned by the person holding the office, not the office itself.
So the people who feel that Harris has achieved political office using questionable ethics and morals can call her whatever they want to as long as we still have any semblance of free speech in the United States.
The problem with your take on this - most people do not refer to men (politicians or men that sleep around) as whores. That is usually a term used to denigrate women. Yes, people have the right to say it & call people whatever they want, but it is also the right of others to call it what it is MISOGYNY.
Agreed. Men are usually called arrogant, misogynistic, egotistical narcissists, which is often the case in reference to male politicians. A politician wants the power and one that wants the power is usually egotistical in the least.
Nicely stated and a unique way to view it.
Of course it was. You are attacking him for not writing what you want written.
While ignoring your own failure to provide that attention.
No.
I totally agree with the points put forth. I would also insist that out language is so abused by hyperbolic partisans as to almost not make sense anymore. Words have meaning and as part of critical thinking we should as a society do be better with how we use them. I'm not talking about banning certain words for some hyper woke culture war. I'm simply talking about using words correctly when we discuss ideas. Taking it one step further (and at this point I feel like I'm shouting into the void) people should work harder at reading comprehension. It's sad... "biggly".
Absolutely!
I do not see the chance for "civility" in the nation , or on this site , be it forced or sarcastic , for a long time into the foreseeable future.
With that I will say good night , fare thee well , and good luck.
You are likely correct Mark.
Some try and some try stirring the pot. Mark, unfortunately what you say is very likely true.