@cepheus42 discussed Sinema’s desire for power in the Dem Senate caucus.
And if you’re implying that @anon61221983 is coming at this from a place of inherent sexism, you’re making an … interesting assumption to put it mildly.
14 Likes
Even here you’re using a misogynistic framing. She’s not wearing a pink wig, and even if she was, she’s got plenty of money, I doubt it’d be a $13 one. Meanwhile, you’re saying that a democratic senator ending his negotiations with the White House on Fox News with essentially no warning is pretty standard, when it really isn’t, and wasn’t treated as such.
I’ll absolutely agree that Sinema’s actions have been more outlandish and lacking in finesse, but that doesn’t suggest to me that the attention is the end goal.
They absolutely are, but saying everyone talking about attention also mentioned money and power as a motivating factor is a statement of fact, and it was wrong.
Seriously? You think I’m making that up? That’s EXACTLY what she did.
(Ok, technically it was $12.99 but other than that my description was accurate.)
18 Likes
They do, but this is not one of those instances, despite all the pearl clutching in this thread…
So… you’re going to derail the entire topic, making it all about how you are “right,” instead?
12 Likes
Maybe we are simply using the word “attention” differently. What I mean by it is that she is placing herself at the center of the discussion about how the democratic party will function in the Senate. She is doing this not because she can use this position to benefit the people she represents, or to pass policy goals. She appears to be doing it for, as you say, personal goals unrelated to her position as Senator. To me that is attention seeking behavior and it has nothing to do with her sex or gender
10 Likes
Where? Because I’m not seeing it.
[quote=“gracchus, post:21, topic:237009, full:true”] And if you’re implying that @anon61221983 is coming at this from a place of inherent sexism, you’re making an … interesting assumption to put it mildly.
[/quote]
I’m not implying anything. I’m saying that the framing, as presented, was inconsistent with how we talk about male politicians. And yes, in a sexist, patriarchal society, every single person can fall victim to unconscious, implanted biases in their thinking, and believing that you can’t is the easiest way to do so. That’s the entire reason I pointed it out; I’ve had this exact same reaction to Sinema, “Oh wow, I guess she decided she wanted some attention again!”. And in this moment, for whatever reason, I reflected on why that’s not how I’ve reacted to shit that Manchin does, and the conclusion I came to was that if you really sit down and compare them, there’s really only one reason to frame him as wanting money and power and her as wanting attention.
I sincerely apologize, I wasn’t aware of that event. It wasn’t the minimum wage vote, which is what I thought we were talking about, but regardless I appreciate it.
2 Likes
So… because you’ve decided that you have a specific bias, that means that everyone else must share that same bias as well… even those of us who spend the vast majority of their time actively trying to educate others and fighting against said bias?
11 Likes
Thank you! Yes, we absolutely are. My concept of attention seeking behavior is that the goal is to receive the attention, as something of value in and of itself. Stunts to get attention with a further goal in mind to me aren’t attention seeking behavior, and if they are to you, we’re having a disagreement of language.
See my discussion with them about why the Dems let Sinema get away with her behaviour. She was flexing her power and getting committee posts because the majority was so slim.
@mindysan will address the other part of your comment better than I could ever hope to.
We are talking about a pattern of attention-seeking behaviour. Doing little jigs on the Senate floor and wearing purple wigs are part of that pattern.
5 Likes
The world consists of more than just your personal perception.
Good day.
11 Likes
“No! See, her wig was PURPLE, not PINK! That’s the important part here!!!”
/S
Just FYI and for the record, this is for everyone - saying “I apologize” is no more ACTUALLY apologizing than saying “I cook dinner” is ACTUALLY cooking dinner.
Apologizing requires actually saying you’re sorry, and what you’re sorry for, at a minimum.
11 Likes
No one can truly know the mind nor the plans of the attention seeker and what the ultimate goal is. If women are dismissed for seeking attention unjustly when they shouldn’t be then it’s a prejudice for sure, but that doesn’t mean women who materially profit off of negative attention can’t be criticized as such does it? That would be stunningly sexist.
12 Likes
Oh, nonsense. Manchin also gets called out here frequently for constantly seeking to be the center of attention.
10 Likes
I’m a woman who REGULARLY calls out ACTUALLY misogyny… don’t mansplain misogyny to me, thanks.
Except for wimmins, about wimmins… /s
Aren’t men the default human? /s
[ETA]
Which I did not say, but thanks for putting words in my mouth…
So what was wrong with what I said…
Building wealth seems like it’s part of her goals… But her ACTIONS is what I’m focused on here. Of course there are other motivations, but attention-seeking is part of it.
Wouldn’t be the first time and it won’t be the last.
Amazing that YOU know her motviations deep down in her soul, but the rest of us are ignorant…
She’s not the ONLY attention-seeking politician out there - the entire Trump caucus comes to mind… but they’re not the topic here, Sinema is.
There is no single behavior that is solely motivated by one goal. Humans don’t work like that, but apparently to be not be shouted down by men here, I have to ensure I cover ALL angles… but I’m the misogynist here… /s
But clearly that’s just facts, while we’re all irrational! /s
10 Likes
I will say, though, that Sen. Sinema does tend to get framed in fairly stereotypical ways. Or, at least, this is a convenient lens that people like to use.
Well… there can be both misogyny aimed at her, and she can also be attention-seeking in her actions. What do we do with the fact that she seems to lean into those kind of stereotypes pretty hard (see the cutesy curtsy to deny working class people a living wage, wearing cheap wigs, etc). Do we ignore that and pretend like she’s not doing what she’s doing? I don’t think many here are saying she’s doing those things because she’s a woman, and that’s “how women are”… we’re watching her actions and noting what she’s doing. Let me note that many women here are the ones with these criticisms, and you know how sensitive we are to this shit, because we have to deal with misogyny first hand.
The reality is that she decided to make her change in the wake of Sen. Warnock’s victory (which was hard-fought and very difficult, and put control of the senate more firmly in the hands of the Democratic party). Given that her next election is 2 years away, there was no reason for her NOT to put her announcement off until next year. It’s a white woman drawing attention away from the hard work of a Black man in this case. A bit Karening if you ask me…
5 Likes
I agree with what I think I’m reading inside your reply: It’s this, that, and a lot of factors. She does seem to crave attention. She’s also craven in a lot of ways that often involve attention-seeking. None of which we should ignore.
What I feel like I read is that criticism of her politics and her political posturing is often wrapped up in traditionally sexist ways of criticizing women. Or, perhaps, traditional criticisms are often used as an entré for other criticisms. And she does seem to, as you write, “lean into” some of the aspects of this.
4 Likes
Yeah, that’s likely true, sadly. Almost any justified criticism of women is going to attract misogynistic reactions, because men who normally try to not appear so are going to find a safe haven “in this case”… This also gives her a means of deflection, though I’ve yet to see her do that… Which sucks, because she’s really screwed over her voters and has clearly become out for herself.
Modern discourse is a minefield… but hasn’t it always been?
6 Likes
