Feminist Cul-de-sac

Sarah, Steve, Jonah, and David discuss the state of the Democratic primary after Joe Biden ...

By

Sarah, Steve, Jonah, and David discuss the state of the Democratic primary after Joe Biden puts more distance between himself and Bernie Sanders, the team then take a feminist detour, and finishes with the effect coronavirus is having on the economy.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (30)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Emily

    I’m working backwards through Dispatch time to read and listen to the older work (7 months is forever ago, right?), and I just had to make this late comment. I love this episode. I laughed out loud. I don’t know how you 4 ultimately found each other and came together on this project, but your group dynamic is priceless!

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Dave

    Are there emails listed anywhere for the Dispatch staff?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Theirn Scott

    Funny, it was over the top funny, entertaining AND informative. The arguments were great. While Steve was unconvinced with Sarah's response to his question, why unlikable women seem to get nominated, Sarah's answer was nuanced and very clever. I'm glad she didn't let the hilarity of the moment give her an out. If I can say this without being presumptuous, it shows great character.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Jim Tung

    This was an excellent episode. I really enjoyed it even more than I enjoy the typical TDP.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Jenny

    One of the highlights of my week, folks.

    Please talk about feminism and women's issues more! For too long, this has been the territory solely of the left. As a radical feminist myself, I am so happy to hear the right talking about feminism in a meaningful way. Maybe I didn't know where to find the smart conservative conversations on this topic before, but I feel like I do now.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    BrandonAlleman

    I don't get Jonah's beef with early voting. I can vote for the candidate with the most letters in their name if that's my prerogative. Whether I vote early, without strategy, by party, with emotion, drunk, or write in my self, that's my liberty. I don't know where he gets off thinking he can apply his arbitrary hurdles to voting because it makes him feel better or he thinks stupid is a disqualifying to voting. To each their own I guess, but it seems kind of nanny and out of character. Vote by mail for life for me!

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    RR

    sorry I see a double standard in Sarah not willing to answer the question of likability to justify her argument of sexism.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    RR

    sorry I see a double standard in Sarah not willing to answer the question of likability to justify her argument of sexism.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    DougCLE

    It's kind of funny that the brief side-track into rank feminism (pace, Jonah) is the topic that everyone jumped on. But since we did...

    There is no question that EW was a deeply flawed candidate, one who lied continuously, unnecessarily, and poorly. (And before someone jumps on it - yes, that is reminiscent of a Certain Other Candidate, but he is the one they're trying to topple, after all.) She also comes across as a total shre... ahem, as a deeply unpleasant woman. So it could have been entirely that, probably *was* entirely that.

    But I don't think Sarah's wrong to consider whether gender plays a part. Not in a "Silly female! Girls can't be president!" kind of way, but as an underlying and - I can't believe I'm about to say this - systemic gender bias. Excuse me for a moment...

    Okay, now I've rinsed the taste of those words out of my mouth, let me explain:

    I'm not implying that the *people* in the system are biased, but I do wonder if something in the American democratic process inhibits women from advancing through it. Here's why: the 116th Congress has the highest percentage of women ever, at 23.7%. But the global average of women in parliaments is 24.3%. The UK percentages are 32/26 (lower/upper), Canada's are 27/46, Mexico (!) is at 48/49. Plenty of countries are in the 30-40% range - we actually rank #78 on the list.

    Please don't think I'm saying this because I'm some fan of quotas. I'm not. I think diversity of thought is far more important than diversity of sex or race. But the question we were discussing is whether gender could have played a part - any part - in tanking EW's candidacy. And I think the numbers above seem to suggest that's a big ol' Yes. I just don't know how.

    Despite what the EW fan club is screaming, we are *not* a generally sexist country. Far from it, actually. So what's going on? The question I think we should be asking isn't why we've had no women presidents, but why we have so few women *candidates*. Find the reason for that and I think it will tell us why the ones we do get seem to be so unappetizing.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Emily

      I’m dipping back to listen to these old podcasts, and this is proving to be one of my favorites. I just had to comment on your post even though it’s several months and a subjective eternity later, because I absolutely love the questions you raise. I don’t know the answers but they’ve given me some significantly constructive food for thought.

      I do think Sarah might be onto something re self selection. When women of Warren’s or Clinton’s generation entered the workforce, there were significant pressures against them. It’s a bit of hyperbole that Bill Clinton lost in 1980 because of the last name thing, but I remember how much talk there was about it, that broke through even to my awareness even as a kid. The point is, of the very many intelligent and capable women of that generation, only a few self selected into seeking positions of power, and those women likely shared some traits. This gives us a smaller and more homogeneous pool. And it’s possible that those traits that led them to push boundaries also made them grate - on both men and women. Maybe.

      Now, the reverse is true - parents are just as eager for their daughters to get a college degree and a good job as they are for their sons. That’s a relatively new norm. I do think there will be a woman president, but not from the trail blazing generation. The pool of women in power is bigger, more variable, and the younger women are just more comfortable that being ambitious and being a woman are two compatible things. People are likely to respond to that comfortable self awareness in a positive way. I think.

      We aren’t a sexist country, especially compared to what we were 40 years ago - just watch the movie 9 to 5 for some cringeworthy views of women in the workplace, which was absolutely hilarious at the time. But gender roles are ingrained into us before we can walk or talk or eat solid food. Being rational creatures we can recognize that and change artificial structures that prevent women from advancing. But moving the needle on gender issues is bound to go slower than on race issues or anything else, because we form our impressions so early.

      The conversation on this podcast, to me, shows how far society has come in my lifetime - we’re getting past boorish masculinity, shrewish defensiveness, we’re getting past the overly polite fear of saying the wrong thing (I hope), and into amusing, genuinely reflective conversation with good-natured jabs between respected colleagues. It was a fun listen!

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougCLE

        New phone. Who dis?

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      WKDawson

      Good point.

      That got me to think about expressing it from a very different angle.

      For whatever reason, I ended up working abroad through a major part of my adult life in Japan. There are, of course, those sort of people who drive around in the black trucks with the huge loudspeakers playing "patriotic" songs from Imperial Japan. I don't know exactly what they believe, but it is something like the world was wonderful and beautiful and everyone was happy before the Meiji restoration and then the West came and corrupted everything -- don't notice that the promulgation of these ideas is via knowledge and technology that originated in the West. They probably believe they graciously introduced Chinese characters to the Chinese. People like that exist everywhere in the world including the USA. ... it has not helped to quell these racist passions with Trump mouthing off across the ocean.

      We could play that narrative when things go sour between our vastly different cultures -- particularly with business and labor issues. However, my impression is most of them are not this way. The problems are more subtle and something within all of us.

      First, I'm obviously different, I'm Caucasian so I cannot hide when I am on the subway, I'm a Christian so my religious views are unfamiliar, and so on. In a way, I have been able to eke out a living here because I am different, but because I am different, it also has made it hard to really be seen as a true member. So I always live as a bit of an outsider, being largely welcome, but never really fitting in nicely like the "regular folk". It has helped me understand why women sometimes say that they feel like a second class citizen.

      So point one, politics is a foreign language for which I have almost zero acumen, but finding the right balance in a culture that in some ways is "foreign", is a genuine challenge. As Sarah points out, Amy Klobuchar or Nikki Halley are probably more comfortable with who they are than EW or HRC because what got them where they are works against them in these election cycles. What makes it possible for me to survive in this foreign country is also that sort of problematical set of contradictions.

      Second, we maybe ought to examine how we treat people who are different ourselves. Do we go out of our way to invite people into our lives, or do we just regard them with a kind of polite indifference? How much effort do we personally make to get to know that person who is very different from ourselves? There are very extraverted people who really have that gift, but most of us wait around for someone else to take the action or we gravitate toward people who are very similar to ourselves in culture, focus, work, religion, etc.

      So point two, this is basically where the majority of people (including me) generally are. I'm very much an introvert so it is a real problem frankly. Nevertheless, in being a fish out of water myself, I see how this plays out when there is no hiding that you are different. It is a very uncomfortable thing for a typical, semi-introverted person to really reach out and try to understand people that are different. We usually judge them thinking that person is supposed to know this and that. Well, when you are a Caucasian from the west living in an Asian country, it is kind of the same in reverse.

      I don't know if EW is a really likable person or not. There was not much of a way to get to know her anyway, and I almost feel a bit unwelcome from whatever vibes she projects. I don't know the impression women have, I suppose they have had to live with this all their lives in the opposite way. It becomes a kind of shtick after a while ... kind of like blaming things on Asian racism. The fact is, it is very complicated. Nevertheless, in forming our opinions about people, we might do well to make a little more effort to get to know the person before we judge. I know this is not David's Sunday sermon, but this is one of the things that Jesus hammered on a lot and one of the things that Peter in Acts 10 came to recognize for the first time. The first 10 chapters of Acts is sort of like a process of discovering that people are people and culture is just a framework under which they operate.

      So, in conclusion, generally, I don't think it is prejudice or misogyny, etc. per se. It is a problem with our natural inclinations to hang out with people who are more like ourselves. It comes at a price to fight that tendency, but we might all be surprised to find out how similar we are if we do. It's an on-going struggle for me, but maybe it is finally a lesson learned.

      On EW specifically, some of the problems surely were EW herself; particularly her choice to grasp for that Indian thing. Then saying medicare for all but not even knowing the price tag. That should have been things we might have expected her to do the homework on. She's a smart woman. Why didn't she do that? As usual, there is the typical don't talk about the price, but that was strange. That said, we should remember that rarely do we scrutinize our own actions and decisions like politicians are examined. Actions do count have consequences in the hands of power, but, at some level, we would be wise to be more forgiving and not too overly judgmental of our leaders. That doesn't mean we have to approve of them, but there is a difference between malice and incompetence.




      Collapse
    3. John Rook

      Valid and interesting points. The only thing I'd say, though, is that the stats you point out comparing US female rep in Congress vs other countries is certainly worth looking at but lacks important context, such as number of women running vs elected. Are the same % of women running in all countries but just losing more in America than anywhere else? I don't know the answer. And if we have less women running in US, the argument could be made that's because "sexism" keeps a number of women from pursuing office, OR it could mean different cultures, different priorities for people of all genders. As you show, there are differences between the three countries you reference.
      But again...worth having an interesting, nuanced conversation about. My problem with Sarah's argument was the "You're support of Klobuchar is just a beard" part. Not very persuasive.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougCLE

        Oh, yeah, my stats are 100% lacking in context, no doubt about that. But that’s exactly what I’m saying: If there is a connection, it runs a lot deeper than what I can show in a 500 word essay with 15 minutes of Google research behind it. It would need to be fully explored, explained, and then (Dispatch readers being who they are) argued about at great length.

        I think The Dispatch is exactly the right place to take this on. Besides, what else you gonna do while you’re shut in for the next two months, huh?

        Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Kevin Johnson

      Well, I for one don’t object to discussing “whether gender could have played a part.” We know it played a part, since many have openly said they voted for Hillary and supported Warren at least partly because they are women. Sarah said she was upset that conservatives argued that their support for Klobuchar showed they weren’t sexist in opposing Warren; she mocked that point. When asked by Jonah why he was being sexist for liking Klobuchar but not Warren she said that was why she was here. She gave no evidence to support her assumption that men against Warren were pushed by some dislike for a particular kind of woman. I don’t mind her raising that, but just asserting it without evidence is unreasonable and undermines the cause of equality. We contain multitudes. There is no reason, other than prejudice, to assume men or women opposing Warren did it due to sexism. If someone wants to make that argument, have at it. But those of us defamed by the charge will, certainly, and politely, object. And where we disagree with the systemic sexism claim as explanation, we will also speak up.

      Collapse
  10. Jason Runyan

    For some reason, while Sarah was talking about feminism, I imagined the men from the club in Trading Places, wearing tweed jackets, smoking pipes and cigars, with Sarah coming in and everyone gruffing and saying, "who is this young lady with her radical ideas in our club?" Hahaha.

    Also find it a little rich that Rush Limbaugh, the of the top of the high risk of dying from coronavirus, being not only old but having cancer and in chemotherapy, is downplaying the effects of the virus. I'm am sure he's poopooing it from his hermetically sealed mansion in Florida, with his private medical staff standing by.

    Collapse
Load More