Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

When Matthew Yglesias with The Atlantic called Howard Dean "very shrill" was it sexist?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-16-07 02:48 PM
Original message
When Matthew Yglesias with The Atlantic called Howard Dean "very shrill" was it sexist?
Hillary the Hawk by Matthew Yglesias with The Atlantic about 3 weeks ago (a really interesting analysis, by the way):

... I'm not sure I'm going to try any harder to "prove" that her foreign policy will be mad. Maybe it will be good. There's a lot of uncertainty. If there were some other clear reason to prefer Hillary Clinton, maybe I'd back her despite my doubts. But I don't think there is. In domestic policy and electability terms, I think all three have some strengths and some weakness. On foreign policy, every indication available to me that there's any difference between her and Edwards or Obama suggests that it'll be a difference that doesn't reflect well on her.

How sure am I that she'd be worse? Not incredibly sure. But to me the great difficulty of this race is that Clinton's established such a strong presumption that she'll be the nominee that it gets difficult to argue against her without making the case that she's somehow horrible. Either she's the devil, or else she should be president. But that's silly.

When I see a race between two politicians, one of whom got Iraq wrong and one of whom got it right, to me that establishes a presumption in favor of the candidate who got it right, no matter whose husband the wrong one is. When it turns out that the one who got it wrong also has a group of advisors heavily weighted toward the group of pro-war "experts" who helped push so many Democratic politicians into taking her wrong position on the war in 2002, that re-enforces my presumption. When the one who got it right is closer to a circle of people who were cast out of favor due to their opposition to the war or willingness to associate with Very Shrill Howard Dean, that re-enforces my presumption. Stuff like the Kyl-Lieberman vote, the funny business on nuclear weapons, the "naive and irresponsible" bit all further re-enforces my presumption.

And I think once you look at it that way, the whole race looks different. There's been a ton of commentary about how Barack Obama hasn't said or done anything to debunk people's presumption that Hillary Clinton should be the nominee. And that appears to be true. But what if you don't start with that presumption? And I don't think we should. To me, the presumption that a candidate who can say he has a record of sound foreign policy judgment that can be contrasted with Republican X's record of support for Bush administration fiascos makes a lot more sense than the presumption that Clinton should get the nomination.

So, is Yglesias and The Atlantic both (a) sexist and (b) unclear about Dean's gender?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bicoastal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-16-07 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. My God...
...what was this place like when Biden called Obama "articulate?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-16-07 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. you don't seem to understand the word as commonly used on the internet
Edited on Sun Dec-16-07 02:55 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter
Yglesias is speaking favorably of Dean here.

"Shrill" is an ironic term used widely among left of center bloggers. It is sarcastic, used to denote opposition to the Iraq war, or any other sensible stance the MSM dismisses too "wacky lefty."

The sarcastic usage of "shrill" started during the run up to the Iraq War when Fox news types were denouncing all anti-war talk, or talk about Bush being a degenrate criminal, as "shrill."

So those who think Hillary is a DINO, calling her "shrill" is irony heaped on irony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-16-07 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. No. I think shrillness generally has more to with a tone of desperation regardless of gender.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-16-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I am providing you with information, not opinion
You are welcome to your opinion about what Yglesias, Duncan Black, Josh Marshall or any of a hundred other bloggers mean when they say "shrill."

I have provided you with factual information as to the actual meaning and usage of the term in the context you provided.

That's all anyone can do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-16-07 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I was referring to the objective dictionary definition of shrill not the subjective interpretation
of what some bloggers really "mean" when they uses the word shrill.

I must have missed the memo that went out to the hundreds of bloggers who were instructed to use the word shrill in some sense other than the literal sense.

Thanks for the heads up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terisan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-16-07 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. Possibly relates to an attempt to de-musculate him or make him seem like a"soft" woman-
Edited on Sun Dec-16-07 03:20 PM by terisan
which they equate with being overly caring of people or not tough enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC