HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » athena » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Aug 7, 2004, 11:55 PM
Number of posts: 2,573

Journal Archives

People love the misogynistic image

of two women going at each other's throats.

From the start of Hillary's campaign, we've seen endless stories about how Warren and Clinton supposedly hated each other. Now that that has been disproven, the story is how Warren and Clinton will supposedly hate each other in the future.

I am going on the record to say that this will not happen. These women are both too smart to fall into the misogynistic trap the misogynistic media has been trying to set for them.

These photos just look wrong.

I think they were all photoshopped by Trump's photographer. Compare the color of the light on the figures to the coloring in the rest of the photo. I'm not a photographer, but I'm an artist. In real life, if a room has a golden glow, that will be reflected in all the figures. Or, if a bluish light is coming through the window, everything will look slightly bluish. Even if you have additional yellow lighting directed at the figures, that will not be enough to uniformly overcome the much larger amount of light coming through the windows. I suspect that the fourth, fifth, and sixth photos from the top were taken at night, and then a New York skyline was separately added over the windows. I believe the seventh (last) photo is a composite of two photographs, one taken at night with yellow lighting, and one taken in the early morning or late afternoon, with bluish lighting coming in through the windows.

In other photos, it looks like the photographer enhanced the colors in certain places. For example, in the fourth picture from the top, the navy blue of the clothing does not fit with the rest of the color scheme, and the white of the flowers is much too bright to be real.

Finally, some of the photos seem to be outright photoshopped together from different pictures. In the first picture, the colors are so incongruous that I believe the elephant, Melania, and the background were all originally separate photographs. You can see this clearly if you look at the edges of the elephant's trunk near the top. Also, look at the bottom of Melania's left hand in this photo; there should be a shadow where the hand turns down and touches the dress, but there isn't. In the last photo, look at Trump's feet: is left foot doesn't seem to be touching the floor the way a normal foot would. His jacket also looks wrong against the chair. And the manufactured breeze that is affecting Melania's dress is not affecting Trump's hair. I think Melania and Donald were both photographed separately and then placed in this photo, with a few shadows added afterwards to make them look like they are actually in the room.

Nothing about Trump is real. He can't even provide pictures of his dwelling that are real.

It's only women who need to be "humanized".

When you have a male sociopath running for president, saying outrageously insensitive and offensive things, no one even talks about the need to "humanize" him.

Whenever we use the word "humanize" in reference to Hillary Clinton, we are admitting that we, as a society, still don't think of women as humans.

It's a sad sign

when a society proudly and openly admires people who don't "give a shit what people think."

Indeed, this explains many things, such as Trump's popularity. In a civilized society, Trump's numbers would never have gone above 5%. Trump is the very embodiment of the egotism that has taken root in American society.

In an ideal society, people would care very much what others think. It's called "empathy". Not caring about what others think is the very definition of sociopathy. And yet, in this sick society, we worship sociopaths, while we mock and disparage those who are sensitive and empathetic. Sensitivity, empathy, and humanity are "uncool"; what is "cool" is treating people like dirt.

The Bill Moyers interviews were amazing in that way.

It was never about Bill Moyers. He would recede into the background and let the person speak, interjecting only to get more depth or to refocus the discussion.

I agree with you about Charlie Rose, by the way. I used to watch him about ten years ago. After a while, he began to irritate me with his self-importance and his tendency to turn his interviews into a way for him to show off how great he was. At around the same time, Bill Moyers was interviewing amazing personalities like Margaret Atwood and Salman Rushdie. If you haven't seen those interviews, I suggest you take a look. They are pure gold.


These sets of interviews are about "Faith and Reason". As an atheist, I am not particularly interested in the question of faith and reason, but I loved the interviews nonetheless. Bill Moyers, of course, is a seminary graduate. A truly great interviewer can interview a person about a topic he is interested in, and still make the interview interesting to someone who is not interested in that topic.

For the first time in my life,

I am no longer afraid to be called "nasty". If Hillary Clinton can stand up to this kind of sexism, so can I. I reserve the right to be as nasty as I like -- especially when I'm hurting nothing and no one aside from the feelings of a sexist bully.

Because we are not afraid to be called "nasty" any more.

We've been manipulated by this sort of sexist attack for too long. Every time we dare to be smarter than a man, or to disagree with a man, or to stand up against a male bully, we get called all kinds of things that suggest that we're not ladylike enough, that there is something wrong with us, and that we should be ashamed of ourselves. It was pivotal to see this happen to Hillary Clinton in such a direct way on national television. Enough is enough. They can call us nasty if they want to; we will wear the label proudly.

Well, I'm female

but I think that if a man wants to defend a woman's right to choose, he's welcome to do so.

For a man to say a woman has a right to decide what happens to her body is very different from a man saying a woman does not have a right to decide and can be used as an incubator regardless of her wishes. Especially when a man says the latter, it is important for another man to respond with the former. After all, a man who believes women's bodies should be under the control of the government will not listen to anything a woman might say.

Just as it is white people who will end racism (as per Ben Jealous), it is men who will end sexism. If women could end sexism by ourselves, we would have done so long ago. This is why I think it's counterproductive for women to reject men who want to be partners in our endeavor to make the world a more egalitarian place for everybody.

I disagree with that stance.

This is my personal opinion. Just as I believe that the vegan movement's refusal to accept people who are 90% or 99% vegan is a mistake and hurts the cause of improving animals' lives, I believe the refusal of certain feminists to accept men as feminists hurts the cause of achieving true equality for women. (I'm not implying any sort of equivalence there; I am a vegetarian and a feminist, and it just so happens that the vegan movement is much more purist than the feminist movement.)

These are just labels. What matters is actions. If a man is fighting to make the world a more equal place for women, then he is a feminist, period. I don't see how it helps matters to refuse men the use of the "feminist" label. The goal should be to move toward a world that is 100% feminist -- not a world in which a select group of people get to apply a label to themselves that makes them feel superior to others. That is my opinion as a feminist.

I wish

we, as a society, had rallied around her back then to challenge the idea that a woman is beautiful only if she is thin. Alicia Machado is and has always been a beautiful woman. Nothing -- not even time -- will change that.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »