newprotest.org: WHAT WOULD FREUD SAY?

WHAT WOULD FREUD SAY?

June 05, 2008
by: jovial_cynic
People make honest mistakes in their speeches, and while I don't think it's necessary to be too critical about those mistakes, I think that it's just fine to poke a little fun at politicians who do it, because they're in the spotlight trying to get attention.

Take McCain's foreign policy flub:


Putin is not the president of Germany.


And then there's Obama's counting problem:


Fifty-seven? I have no clue where that number came from. Obviously some kind of slip up.

In any case, word flubs are enough to get a chuckle, but its unreasonable to question McCain's foreign policy or Obama's patriotism on account it. These are obvious meaningless mistakes that account for nothing.

However, there are statements that simply defy explanation.

McCain on babies:


Bottled hot water? What? Why? What are babies going to do with bottled hot water? Are we going to deliver it to them still hot? How is it going to stay hot? What on earth is going on? What possible Freudian slip could possibly produce such a statement?

It is a mystery. It's almost as baffling as Bush's "no more public scatology" note. Almost.

COMMENTS for WHAT WOULD FREUD SAY?


Matthew said:
Read excerpts from the new book: The Neo-Feminist
here http://elizabitch-ez.blogspot.com/

June 05, 2008


kid funkadelic said:
hey how U doin'. Don't pay attention to Red Queen. If a woman WANTS anti-abortion and anti-Affirmative Action bills THEY'RE REPUBLIKLAN.They're plants. The only sexist thing he said was "sweetie" twice to someone who was bothering him. The more credibility you give to them the more RACISTS they pick up. I spoke to her logically and she shut me off from her site.their cult leader Larry Johnson was a CIA agent,google it,later.
June 06, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
Matthew - clever. It's not very nice, though. Mockery isn't really my style.

kid funkadelic - the thing is, you're an angry black man (or "bitter," as your site states), and Red is an angry woman. From the perspective of someone who is neither female nor black, I think that you're both employing the same tactic on your sites. Because you identify with black oppression, and she identifies with female oppression, you both seem to personalize attacks on your chosen candidates: attacks on Obama are attacks on you and all blacks; attacks on Hillary are attacks on her and all women. Additionally, you both disagree with the defenses presented. Red probably won't agree that saying "sweety" isn't an example of sexism, and you probably won't agree that Hillary's claim to the white working class vote isn't an example of racism. You both are literally doing the same thing. It's almost comical from where I sit.

I don't think that either of you are wrong. I think that your worldview is valid, and that your wounds are real. I speak out against sexism and racism any time I see it. However, as I've mentioned to Red several times, I don't think that everything you perceive to be an attack is an attack.

June 06, 2008


Matthew said:
Well, you are wasting your time trying to reason with the fringe Clintonistas. I tried it a long time ago. Anything but absolute agreement is taken as a personal insult...as trolling...as sexism. Remember to seperate this personality cult from the real feminist movement. If you kep questioning them they will call you a troll if they haven't already and they will edit your posts to include what they think are clever jokes about your genetalia.
They give feminism and people working for womens issues a bad name, which is why I started the blog in the link.
Nice try, though. You seem reasonable, but you are dealing with a very small gaggle of immature damaged goods.

June 07, 2008


wonder said:
so what's with the bottled hot water thing, anyway?

will they be sending it in thermoses?

June 07, 2008


wonder said:
on a more serious note, JC, re your analysis "From the perspective of someone who is neither female nor black" of both RQ's & KF's anger at the sexism & racism that have reared their ugly heads during this campaign, you do realize that there's probably a whole lot that you can't see from that angle?

To refer to people's genuine hurt and anger as a "tactic" and "almost comical" is insensitive to say the least.

regarding "personalizing" attacks: The reason for the anger, the reason we take it personally, is because it does hurt us. Attacking a member of a marginalized group, as a member of that group is damaging to every member of that group. In part because it's self-perpetuating (thus the blog comment phenomenon you remarked on over at Red's) the unabashed media sexism directed at Clinton has encouraged untold numbers of commenters to spew misogynistic bile all over the blogs of, not only Clinton supporters, but anyone who dares to say anything to counter it. (one blog I read frequently, whose founder actually worked for the Edwards campaign, has documented no less than one hundred separate instances of media sexism. every time she posts a new one, the thread is swarmed by trolls.)

June 08, 2008


wonder said:
i have more thoughts but as that comment took way too long to write.. i figured i better send it...


June 08, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
Matthew - I have had reasonable conversations with Red, so I believe you to be generally incorrect. I don't agree with everything she says, and I think that some of the people who comment on her site are too quick to call people trolls, but you'll notice that Red was quick to correct one commenter by explaining that my line of questioning was not an example of trolling; also she apologized for misunderstanding a comment I made. So... I think that your characterization is incorrect. Also, I don't think you're in a position to make claims on the impact of Red's blog on women's issues.

Wonder - sorry for the confusion. I didn't mean to say that the anger itself was a tactic or almost comical. I was referring to the way in which the sites are run. That is, both Red's and KF's site post examples of what they feel to be either sexist or racist, and they disregard the possibility that the example that they're using might not actually be a valid example. I call that a "tactic" because that appears to be the method they are using to get their point across. The comical part to me is that the accusations of one are the identical to the accusations of the other, and I don't see any evidence that either really understands that. Red makes no move to decry the racism that Obama experiences, and KF makes no move to acknowledge the sexism built around attacks on Clinton. There is no, "oh, I see what you're saying there" kind of dialog... and I find that comical. Not in a "hilarious" sort of way, but in a bang-your-head-against-the-wall kind of way. Do you remember when Red and I debated for a while, and you told me that you could see both of our perspectives, and that she and I were talking past each other instead of to each other? I imagine that it must have seemed rather frustrating and comical to you, as a third party bystander. And that's what I mean.

I will acknowledge, however, that Red doesn't personally use racist attacks, where I do agree that KF and Matthew have been sexist in their attacks against the "Clintonistas," whatever that's supposed to mean.

Bear in mind that I did say this:
I don't think that either of you are wrong. I think that your worldview is valid, and that your wounds are real. I speak out against sexism and racism any time I see it.


So I'm not offhandedly dismissing the presence of racism or sexism. I know it's real and that it's hurtful.

June 08, 2008


add comments. you are limited to 5,000 characters:

<< your name
<< your email (won't be displayed)
<< your website / location
<< type these numbers: 261037 (plus 0NE)

(html -enabled- / no scripts)

<< Comments temporarily disabled >>

Rules: Don't spam. Don't harrass. Don't be a jerk. Your IP address (54.166.242.76) will be logged.