Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 feeder wrote:
I do find the highly privileged white men and boys ITT deciding they get to decide what is and is not sexist speech quite amusing.

How do you know who in this thread is a highly privileged white man or boy?

 feeder wrote:
I do find the highly privileged white men and boys ITT deciding they get to decide what is and is not sexist speech quite amusing.

Please explain how the list of words are sexist.

feeder wrote:I do find the highly privileged white men and boys ITT deciding they get to decide what is and is not sexist speech quite amusing.

You find that in many communities, video games and wargaming included, but I think it's not really sexist to say that Hillary isn't any of those things. To be honest if a politician isn't described like that then they're just very good at hiding it. In reality it depends on the context, are people being more harsh to Hillary because she's a woman? I think in some cases you could say yes, but she certainly has points to be criticised like any other person.

Breotan wrote:There was an article the other day about how Hillary also has supporters monitoring her wiki page like hawks.

Just like I imagine there are people monitoring their respective favoured politician's pages like hawks. Certain corporations also heavily monitor their own wiki pages.

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
Uh...what?

This was my reaction. Is say if she has a list you can't say about here, then the reporter MUST use at least some of them.

Here's the important bit in the OP that everyone seems to have missed:

That's according to the Clinton "Super Volunteers," who have promised to track the media's use of words they believe to be sexist code words. The New York Times's Amy Chozick tweeted a missive she received from the group (which we would note is almost definitely not connected to official Team Clinton) on Wednesday:

This isn't a mandate from her office, from the White House, or from a government body. It's a Twitter group, ffs.

 MrScience wrote:
Honestly that just reminds me of the ridiculously sexist tripe I had a lot of LNP voting family members say about Gillard. Tired 'hur hur patriarchy check your privilege' jokes aside, there definitely was a sexist angle to the criticism launched at her.

She played the victim at every turn, and when you occupy the highest office in the land that's just pathetic.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
Polarizing
Calculating
Disingenuous
Insincere
Ambitious
Entitled
Over Confidant
Secretive
"Will do anything to win"
Represents the Past
Out of Touch

None of these words are sexist (as much as a word can be sexist...). These people need to learn the definition of sexist. They have the definition of stupid down pat though, so there's that.

I guess you're just Out of Touch and Over Confident in your Entitled opinion on sexism.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
A quick edit: her SUPPORTERS wouldn't have to hide her from these words. She might not be, but her supporters are. Somehow I find that even more shameful.

A bit like our last Prime Minister did, especially before the end (where she was deposed by the guy she deposed in the first place).

Prepare for a new Victim-in-Chief, I guess.

Ok, minor quibble, but this narrative bothers me every time I hear it repeated: she was never 'deposed', Rudd did not conduct some kind of coup against her, she fell on her sword.

 feeder wrote:
I do find the highly privileged white men and boys ITT deciding they get to decide what is and is not sexist speech quite amusing.

A few of us have expressed incredulity that gender neutral words and phrases have been deemed sexist. Rather than play identity politics as your first line of argument perhaps you could substantiate how these words are in fact sexist, as it may alleviate some concerns.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
How the heck is calculating a bad word amongst those!?

Calculating and calculated have "scheming" connotations. In public speaking / journalism it's a word to avoid if you want to give a positive spin to the subject you're writing about, because it immediately draws the inference to a negative, almost secretive, plan to fool or defraud.

Used in scientific and technical writing, calculating is neutral - hell, even positive. Used to describe something to everyday sheeple though, it definitely has slightly negative undertones of a combination of sneaky and scheming.

My company avoids this (and many other) words in its advertising brochures, but freely uses it with technical data literature. Two different audiences, two different ways of writing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MrScience wrote:
Honestly that just reminds me of the ridiculously sexist tripe I had a lot of LNP voting family members say about Gillard. Tired 'hur hur patriarchy check your privilege' jokes aside, there definitely was a sexist angle to the criticism launched at her.

She played the victim at every turn, and when you occupy the highest office in the land that's just pathetic.

Defending yourself does not constitute playing the victim.

There's plenty of instances of sexism levelled at her in the media and in politics, is she not allowed to respond to it? I've even got a lit review on the subject here: http://eview.anu.edu.au/burgmann/issue2/pdf/ch08.pdf which lists numerous examples of her being attacked for her gender; such as the 'Bob Brown's Bitch' placard.

Quick, to the memory hole with these words!

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I do find the highly privileged white men and boys ITT deciding they get to decide what is and is not sexist speech quite amusing.

A few of us have expressed incredulity that gender neutral words and phrases have been deemed sexist. Rather than play identity politics as your first line of argument perhaps you could substantiate how these words are in fact sexist, as it may alleviate some concerns.

I don't think he was serious in his comment

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I do find the highly privileged white men and boys ITT deciding they get to decide what is and is not sexist speech quite amusing.

A few of us have expressed incredulity that gender neutral words and phrases have been deemed sexist. Rather than play identity politics as your first line of argument perhaps you could substantiate how these words are in fact sexist, as it may alleviate some concerns.

I don't think he was serious in his comment

Poe's Law.

I guess this is better than some guy in the country with a beard saying "Can't have no womens in president n' stuff" all over tv. Will still happen of course.

"Hillary Clinton is a very ambitious women"
This could be set is or complimentary depending on the tone and what words are emphasized. Our society isn't a big fan of ambitious women still.
or entitled, it could be used to imply sue only got this far because of her husbsnd, rather than her own merits

Most of these words would not be used to describe a white man with similar political experience running for the white house.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
"Hillary Clinton is a very ambitious women"
This could be set is or complimentary depending on the tone and what words are emphasized. Our society isn't a big fan of ambitious women still.
or entitled, it could be used to imply sue only got this far because of her husbsnd, rather than her own merits

Well, they called Caesar ambitious once. Look how that turned out for him.

I think the choice of words they are afraid of is a more interesting story than the ways in which the words even directly apply to her.

 insaniak wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
How the heck is calculating a bad word amongst those!?

Yeah. I can get how all of those are negatives save calculating. I'd consider calculating to be a good thing in a leader XD

Someone descried as calculating tends to be seen as cold, or aloof. Nor a good thing for a politician, as they want to be seen as human and approachable.

It's certainly not sexist, though.

Ehh, the way you put it though, well, for a man to be cold or aloof, it would often be left at that. But there are other, less polite, terms used to describe a woman who is cold or aloof. So, I can kinda see the point here, but it is going overboard to claim the words in that list are specifically sexist.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
How the heck is calculating a bad word amongst those!?

Yeah. I can get how all of those are negatives save calculating. I'd consider calculating to be a good thing in a leader XD

Someone descried as calculating tends to be seen as cold, or aloof. Nor a good thing for a politician, as they want to be seen as human and approachable.

It's certainly not sexist, though.

Ehh, the way you put it though, well, for a man to be cold or aloof, it would often be left at that. But there are other, less polite, terms used to describe a woman who is cold or aloof. So, I can kinda see the point here, but it is going overboard to claim the words in that list are specifically sexist.

See, the thing is, I can understand not wanting to call her a witch, but to just say "You can't call her cold" is just as sexist as some words that legitimately shouldn't be used to describe her (The kind not seen in civilized conversation).

Question here. Do these protections apply to other female electoral candidates, or just Hillary Clinton?

 feeder wrote:
Most of these words would not be used to describe a white man with similar political experience running for the white house.

Yeah, you're totes right:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/mitt-romney-disingenuous-bill-de-blasio_n_6509056.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romney-touch/story?id=15801839

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-jeb-bush-and-mitt-romney-a-history-of-ambition-fuels-a-possible-2016-collision/2015/01/10/255bfbaa-98f0-11e4-927a-4fa2638cd1b0_story.html

To reiterate, because the truth is less fun:

 Psienesis wrote:
Here's the important bit in the OP that everyone seems to have missed:

That's according to the Clinton "Super Volunteers," who have promised to track the media's use of words they believe to be sexist code words. The New York Times's Amy Chozick tweeted a missive she received from the group (which we would note is almost definitely not connected to official Team Clinton) on Wednesday:

This isn't a mandate from her office, from the White House, or from a government body. It's a Twitter group, ffs.

 Orlanth wrote:
Question here. Do these protections apply to other female electoral candidates, or just Hillary Clinton?

I guess that depends how capable of enforcing arbitrary requests a group of random people with twitter accounts are.

Ok to be honest I was surprised that bossy wasn't on that list.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Ok to be honest I was surprised that bossy wasn't on that list.

I guess they are less concerned about articles written by disgruntled seven year olds.

 feeder wrote:
Most of these words would not be used to describe a white man with similar political experience running for the white house.

Would they not? I bet they would.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Ok to be honest I was surprised that bossy wasn't on that list.

The "Calling women bossy" is always an interesting one for me. I have seen it used to excuse bullying as much as dismiss management.

 Psienesis wrote:
Here's the important bit in the OP that everyone seems to have missed:

That's according to the Clinton "Super Volunteers," who have promised to track the media's use of words they believe to be sexist code words. The New York Times's Amy Chozick tweeted a missive she received from the group (which we would note is almost definitely not connected to official Team Clinton) on Wednesday:

This isn't a mandate from her office, from the White House, or from a government body. It's a Twitter group, ffs.

Exactly... from a fan-club.

No story here...

Then there was the whole age thing the Hillary camp was leveling at McCain, saying he was too old to be president. I wonder how she will defend herself on that front since she is not much younger than he was at the time he ran. I wonder if that will be another forbidden thing to speak of?

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/hillary-clinton-brain-damage-democrat-party/

Well, you never talk about a women's age invgeneral....
on fear of being banished to the couch

 feeder wrote:
Most of these words would not be used to describe a white man with similar political experience running for the white house.

Every single one of those words & phrases was used to describe Mitt Romney during the last election.

Polarizing
Calculating
Disingenuous
Insincere
Ambitious
Entitled
Over Confidant
Secretive
"Will do anything to win"
Represents the Past
Out of Touch


I propose a compromise: I will agree that there have been and will be sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton, just as there were on Sarah Palin and Elizabeth Warren and will be on any other high profile woman who runs in a major campaign; if you will agree that the words above are not intrinsically sexist and are generally applied to any politician regardless of race or gender.

Relapse wrote:
Then there was the whole age thing the Hillary camp was leveling at McCain, saying he was too old to be president. I wonder how she will defend herself on that front since she is not much younger than he was at the time he ran. I wonder if that will be another forbidden thing to speak of?

I doubt very much that Hillary's age will not be discussed. The health of a candidate is fair game for a presidential election and she would tie for the the oldest president ever elected.

In fact, that disingenuous (heh) article asks if the media will ask such questions of her, deciding that, "in the tank as they are", they will not, when in fact a simple google search immediately returns such aticles, including this one by MSN-fething-BC.

Truthfully I suspect the real purpose of that article is to increase the google ranking of the phrase "Hillary clinton brain damage", in furtherance of the lie pushed a while back that she had suffered a traumatic brain injury,