Liz Warren

  • Edit/rename discussion
  • Make sticky
  • Archive discussion
  • Move discussion

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/6/2011 5:23 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : How are Brown's comments "sexist"? Apart from the fact that she's a female and he's a male? Would they be "sexist" if Warren were male? IMO, if she's going to essentially call him a "sl*t" - haha he posed nude for money -- he can respond in like kind -- thank God she didn't do the same. I can't see how that's sexist. At most, it's calling her ugly. Which isn't exactly an adult maneuver. But neither was hers.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow


    She just told the "little people" what she thinks of them and their struggles.  What an elitist jerk she is.
     

  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/6/2011 9:19 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : They were both petty.  But Warren's remark was not about his appearance, it was about his ethical choice to pose nude.  (Note I didn't say moral choice. He did what he had to do. So be it.)  This isn't unusual; many students strip or work as artists models. Women, particularly those in a position of authority, have a constant struggle to be defined by their work and ideas and not their appearance.  (For men, it's being defined by their manliness.)  It's pervasive, but it's still sexist. Personally, I think both comments were reflexive, not deep commentary, and as such no big deal...however, some people might see the underlying subliminal messages as instructive.  Not me, but some people....
    Posted by MattyScornD

    I think Prof. Warren's comment was a rehearsed one,its like she was jusrt waiting for the opportunity to bring it up.  It's almost like someone gave her the question before it was asked.

    It's unfortunate that Sen Brown took the bait and commented at all, but he was fully justified.  This just provided Joan Vennochi an opportunity for another Sen Brown hit piece, she was overdue as its been a few weeks.

    The comment was sophomoric not sexist, but Joan will call it an assault against women and blah, blah, blah..........

     

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bobc33. Show bobc33's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/6/2011 11:59 PM EDT

    I've seen Liz Warren with her clothes off, not a pretty sight unless you've broken open your second twelvepack and it is after midnight.
     

  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 7:46 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    I've seen Liz Warren with her clothes off, not a pretty sight unless you've broken open your second twelvepack and it is after midnight.
    Posted by bobc33



    Don't play into their hands.

    Warren clearly threw down the gauntlet, that Brown, being raised in a poor family, should not have done everything he could legally do to lift himself up.  In Warrens world, Brown is lower class and needs to stay there and be happy and helpless, save the benevolent gifts from the government.

    What Warren is trying to do is set a battlefield where she can crow on about Brown, but anything said against her is IMMEDIATELY branded sexist.  The Globe will fall in line.

    This is the thought process of the left:  elites are good, and the poor need to stay in their place and be happy with the crumbs doles out from Washington.

     Liberals only thrive when victims stay victims.  You can't stay in power based on helping victims if you actually help them.  When people help themselves, government is emasculated.  Democrats don't want their powerful control to be diminished by people actually succeeding on their own.

    Do we really need this Warren person reinforcing a dependence on government?
     

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from bobc33. Show bobc33's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 8:17 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : Don't play into their hands. Warren clearly threw down the gauntlet, that Brown, being raised in a poor family, should not have done everything he could legally do to lift himself up.  In Warrens world, Brown is lower class and needs to stay there and be happy and helpless, save the benevolent gifts from the government. What Warren is trying to do is set a battlefield where she can crow on about Brown, but anything said against her is IMMEDIATELY branded sexist.  The Globe will fall in line. This is the thought process of the left:  elites are good, and the poor need to stay in their place and be happy with the crumbs doles out from Washington.  Liberals only thrive when victims stay victims.  You can't stay in power based on helping victims if you actually help them.  When people help themselves, government is emasculated.  Democrats don't want their powerful control to be diminished by people actually succeeding on their own. Do we really need this Warren person reinforcing a dependence on government?
    Posted by skeeter20


    skeeter, you are the voice of reason and make sense.   Me, a bit irrational and sometime the ambien takes over late at night and in the morning I see posts I don't remember making.....
     

  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jackbu. Show jackbu's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 10:21 AM EDT

    nothing earth shaking exept Brown has a real candidate.  This time it will be a real election and brown has to bring his a game.
     

  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 10:48 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : I think Prof. Warren's comment was a rehearsed one,its like she was jusrt waiting for the opportunity to bring it up.  It's almost like someone gave her the question before it was asked. It's unfortunate that Sen Brown took the bait and commented at all, but he was fully justified.  This just provided Joan Vennochi an opportunity for another Sen Brown hit piece, she was overdue as its been a few weeks. The comment was sophomoric not sexist, but Joan will call it an assault against women and blah, blah, blah..........
    Posted by massmoderateJoe


    Here's why you're wrong (ignoring Vennochi, who is not the issue):

    First, the questioner raised Brown's modeling gig in the question itself (paraphrasing): Scott Brown posed nude to pay for college.  How did you pay for college?  "I kept my clothes on"  A petty dig, yes, but nonetheless reflexive.

    Second, her comment was about his behavior, not his gender or physique.  He was born male, but he was not forced to pose nude.  He made a choice that SOME people might have a problem making for themselves.

    Third, his comment was about her physical appearance, something she has only marginal control over (genetic) and which speaks to her own self esteem and the public conception of beauty.  He basically called her 'ugly' - a mean thing to say under ANY circumstance, but naturally worse to a woman.

    I'll also note that his response was also reflexive and enabled by a dim DJ.  I don't think he really meant it, either, but he could have walked it back.  Repeat: both comments were petty.  Brown may not be a sexist, but that comment was indeed sexist by any real rhetorical standard. 

    FWIW, I heard that Ms. Warren blew it off as saying she fully supports anyone who had to work their way through college - which is, btw, the point Mr. Brown was trying to make before he went a step too far and blew it.  He could have made the point more succinctly without calling her ugly.

    "Never hit a girl, even if she hits you."
     

  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 10:54 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : ...much ado about nothing.
    Posted by OAMLFO


    Ironically perhaps, a [sweetly hilarious] play about puerile gossip, misunderstandings and misplaced affections.

    Intentional...??
     

  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from howiewho. Show howiewho's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 11:07 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : I think Prof. Warren's comment was a rehearsed one,its like she was jusrt waiting for the opportunity to bring it up.  It's almost like someone gave her the question before it was asked. It's unfortunate that Sen Brown took the bait and commented at all, but he was fully justified.  This just provided Joan Vennochi an opportunity for another Sen Brown hit piece, she was overdue as its been a few weeks. The comment was sophomoric not sexist, but Joan will call it an assault against women and blah, blah, blah..........
    Posted by massmoderateJoe

    It a sad state we are in when humorous comments are elevated to this state.
    Candidates are not telling Us what they will do if elected.
     I watch some of the debate and it seemed somewhat "programmed"
     

  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jackbu. Show jackbu's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 11:09 AM EDT

    Brown has some problems.  One problem would be if anyone is smart enough to go over his debate with Coakley.   When Coakley suggested that we spend less time in Afghanistan and more time in Pakistan, Scott Brown laughed at her.  I guess we all know now that spending more time in Pakistan, paid off in a big way.
     

  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 11:13 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : ...you decide.
    Posted by OAMLFO


    ipso facto, maybe...


    Are you a fan of the Bard...?
     

  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 11:30 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : .... most of his work, I would prefer to have a thousand needles poked in my eyes.
    Posted by OAMLFO


    Not inclined to classic english literature...??  Or the many, many derivations thereof...??
     

  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 11:33 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : They were both petty.  But Warren's remark was not about his appearance, it was about his ethical choice to pose nude.  (Note I didn't say moral choice. He did what he had to do. So be it.)  This isn't unusual; many students strip or work as artists models. Women, particularly those in a position of authority, have a constant struggle to be defined by their work and ideas and not their appearance.  (For men, it's being defined by their manliness.)  It's pervasive, but it's still sexist. Personally, I think both comments were reflexive, not deep commentary, and as such no big deal...however, some people might see the underlying subliminal messages as instructive.  Not me, but some people....
    Posted by MattyScornD


    I dunno. I disagree.

    To me, both are attempts to denigrate the other by a very indirect attack on their sexuality. And men's appearance matters too. Particularly height. But charisma goes a long way.

    Just imagine what the reaction would be if Warren were male and Brown were female. And imagine the complete non-reaction if both were male or both were female.

    Either both comments are sexist or they aren't.
     

  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 11:50 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    ....lighten up. Both were off the cuff comments.
    Posted by OAMLFO


    I think Warren's comments were calculated.  Too slick, too quick of a response.
     

  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 11:50 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : ....I am a big fan of Mad magazine.
    Posted by OAMLFO


    Me too...!!

    (In my youth anyway, but I still pick it up occasionally.)
     

  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 12:08 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : I dunno. I disagree. To me, both are attempts to denigrate the other by a very indirect attack on their sexuality. And men's appearance matters too. Particularly height. But charisma goes a long way. Just imagine what the reaction would be if Warren were male and Brown were female. And imagine the complete non-reaction if both were male or both were female. Either both comments are sexist or they aren't.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow


    No, there's a big difference between behavior and nature. 

    There is an ethical question to posing nude for money irrelevant of the purpose for doing so.  That Brown did it to earn money for college is fine, but it doesn't answer the initial question.  That Brown was handsome enough to do so is also irrelevant (except maybe to the viewers).

    Again, Ms. Warren has only marginal control over her appearance, but there is no ethical question to NOT posing nude for money.  She is no better or worse for this fact, and yet...

    ...Brown acted repulsed (and catty) by the idea of her doing something that he did himself.

    That's why his comment was inconsistent; the fact that Ms. Warren is a woman made it sexist, or at least misogynist.

    Are you following me...?
     

  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 12:13 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : I think Warren's comments were calculated.  Too slick, too quick of a response.
    Posted by skeeter20


    OK.  That's your opinion.  I disagree because it was a leading question. 

    Here's my opinion:

    I think Brown's comments were NOT calculated...
     
    and as such slightly freudian in scope.  He may not have meant it, but he still said it on the radio....
     

  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 1:05 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : No, there's a big difference between behavior and nature.  There is an ethical question to posing nude for money irrelevant of the purpose for doing so.  That Brown did it to earn money for college is fine, but it doesn't answer the initial question.  That Brown was handsome enough to do so is also irrelevant (except maybe to the viewers). Again, Ms. Warren has only marginal control over her appearance, but there is no ethical question to NOT posing nude for money.  She is no better or worse for this fact, and yet... ...Brown acted repulsed (and catty) by the idea of her doing something that he did himself. That's why his comment was inconsistent; the fact that Ms. Warren is a woman made it sexist, or at least misogynist. Are you following me...?
    Posted by MattyScornD


    No I'm not following because I am not categorizing Warren's statement as an "ethical" comment, at least not as a way to say it is not sexist.

    Or, if it is, then is an "ethical" comment in the same sense as saying a woman is a "sl*t" is an ethical (and sexist) comment on the morality of sleeping with a lot of people.

    Moreover, I do not  think "sexism" turns on the sex of the target of a comment. Sexism is denigrating or descriminating against someone either directly based on their sex, or if you want to go more broadly, on matters related to sex.

    I consider Warren's mockery of Brown on the ethics of posing nude to be sexist.

    Otherwise we're in double-standard territory: A woman can mock what a man does with his body, but a man cannot call a woman ugly.

    And if you bring up appearances and their role in how someone's judged, then I answer the same: Both men and women are judged on appearance, just in slightly different ways.

    If Warren were a man and Brown were a woman, the PC media would jump down Warren's throat. Because then, the PC media really would characterize it as calling brown a "sl*t". It's only because he's a man that this isn't how Warren's statement is viewed.

    If both were women or both were men, nothing would happen.

    Different results, but comments with the same thing at heart: denigration of a person based on something related to their sex or sexuality.



     

  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 1:40 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : Here's why you're wrong (ignoring Vennochi, who is not the issue): First, the questioner raised Brown's modeling gig in the question itself (paraphrasing): Scott Brown posed nude to pay for college.  How did you pay for college?  "I kept my clothes on"  A petty dig, yes, but nonetheless reflexive. Second, her comment was about his behavior, not his gender or physique.  He was born male, but he was not forced to pose nude.  He made a choice that SOME people might have a problem making for themselves. Third, his comment was about her physical appearance, something she has only marginal control over (genetic) and which speaks to her own self esteem and the public conception of beauty.  He basically called her 'ugly' - a mean thing to say under ANY circumstance, but naturally worse to a woman. I'll also note that his response was also reflexive and enabled by a dim DJ.  I don't think he really meant it, either, but he could have walked it back.  Repeat: both comments were petty.  Brown may not be a sexist, but that comment was indeed sexist by any real rhetorical standard.  FWIW, I heard that Ms. Warren blew it off as saying she fully supports anyone who had to work their way through college - which is, btw, the point Mr. Brown was trying to make before he went a step too far and blew it.  He could have made the point more succinctly without calling her ugly. "Never hit a girl, even if she hits you."
    Posted by MattyScornD

    I know you are struggling to concoct a position in support of Warren so that's OK, but you seem to infer a lot of meaning from his simple response to the radio jock comment.

    But I'm all for equality, if Warren wants to play the game she started she has to expect the reaction she got, live by the sword and risk falling on your sword.

    There's no crying in Politics unless you're Muskie or perfect it like Clinton did.

     

  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 2:02 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : No I'm not following because I am not categorizing Warren's statement as an "ethical" comment, at least not as a way to say it is not sexist. Or, if it is, then is an "ethical" comment in the same sense as saying a woman is a "sl*t" is an ethical (and sexist) comment on the morality of sleeping with a lot of people. Moreover, I do not  think "sexism" turns on the sex of the target of a comment. Sexism is denigrating or descriminating against someone either directly based on their sex, or if you want to go more broadly, on matters related to sex. I consider Warren's mockery of Brown on the ethics of posing nude to be sexist. Otherwise we're in double-standard territory: A woman can mock what a man does with his body, but a man cannot call a woman ugly. And if you bring up appearances and their role in how someone's judged, then I answer the same: Both men and women are judged on appearance, just in slightly different ways. If Warren were a man and Brown were a woman, the PC media would jump down Warren's throat. Because then, the PC media really would characterize it as calling brown a "sl*t". It's only because he's a man that this isn't how Warren's statement is viewed. If both were women or both were men, nothing would happen. Different results, but comments with the same thing at heart: denigration of a person based on something related to their sex or sexuality.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow


    Sorry, but I think you're wrong.  At the core of these comments, she critiqued his ethics and he critiqued her appearance.  The whole kerfuffle extends from this construction.  And it's undeniable that women are much, much more prone to sexism from men than men are from women.

    You are making an inference of "sl*t" that simply wasn't there.  Take away the "sexuality" aspect (which doesn't apply anyway), and there's no equivalence.

    Look, say you worked at McDonald's to pay for college, and I didn't.  (It's a fact that some people find McD's business practices highly unethical.)  Someone asks what I did to pay for college and I say, "I didn't sling french fries".  And you respond, "Thank God!"

    I'm saying, callously, "I didn't have to work in fast food. I did something 'better' than you", while you're saying, falsely, "You are incapable of doing what I did; you would have screwed it up."  They are two different questions; I'm questioning your choice, and you're questioning my aptitude.

    As far as PC goes, there's a river of BS that women have to take and that they've been taking for eons.  They are the world's historically most discriminated against group, bar none.  I would guess that their constituency far outweighs that of the stripper/nude model contingent.
     

  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 2:07 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : I know you are struggling to concoct a position in support of Warren so that's OK, but you seem to infer a lot of meaning from his simple response to the radio jock comment. But I'm all for equality, if Warren wants to play the game she started she has to expect the reaction she got, live by the sword and risk falling on your sword. There's no crying in Politics unless you're Muskie or perfect it like Clinton did.
    Posted by massmoderateJoe


    I'm not struggling at all.  I understand it perfectly.  The challenge is in getting folks like you to understand how rhetorical constructs work and how to decipher them...something the media has forgotten how to do.

    You're right it's a game, but not everyone sees it that way.  But if you insist that female candidates must 'man up' to run for office, then male candidates must "woman up" in kind. 

    And last i checked, woman voters are the majority demo in Mass.
     

  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 2:23 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : I'm not struggling at all.  I understand it perfectly.  The challenge is in getting folks like you to understand how rhetorical constructs work and how to decipher them...something the media has forgotten how to do. You're right it's a game, but not everyone sees it that way.  But if you insist that female candidates must 'man up' to run for office, then male candidates must "woman up" in kind.  And last i checked, woman voters are the majority demo in Mass.
    Posted by MattyScornD

    ah yes it comes down to; getting folks like me to understand.

    This is the matty version of Goodwins Law...........

     

  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 2:32 PM EDT

    Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the application of the belief or attitude that there are characteristics implicit to one's gender that indirectly affect one's abilities in unrelated areas. It is a form of discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, with such attitudes being based on beliefs in traditional stereotypes of gender roles. The term sexism is most often used in relation with discrimination against women, in the context of patriarchy.

    Sexism involves hatred of, or prejudice towards a gender as a whole or the blind application of gender stereotypes. Sexism is often associated with gender-supremacy arguments.


    Warren: "I didn't take my clothes off"

    Brown: "Thank god"

    What he said is just not sexist. His comment had nothing to do with her being a woman. Based on his response we can only deduce that he simply doesn't find her attractive. It's not sexist to find someone to be unattractive. That's called an opinion.
    He didn't say she has characteristics that affect her abilities
    His comment had nothing to do with traditional gender roles
    His comment wasn't discriminating against women in the context of patriarchy
    His comment didn't involve prejudice towards her gender as a whole

    He just simply doesn't think she's all that attractive and therefore wouldn't want to see HER naked. Not ALL women. Just HER.
    He didn't say she shouldn't do it BECAUSE she's a woman. He didn't say she wasn't able to do it BECAUSE she's a woman. THAT would be sexist.
    If he had said she wouldn't make a good senator BECAUSE she's a woman...THAT would be sexist because he would be invoking her gender. Her gender shouldn't/doesn't matter when it comes to being a senator.

     

  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 2:36 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    In Response to Re: Liz Warren : ah yes it comes down to; getting folks like me to understand. This is the matty version of Goodwins Law...........
    Posted by massmoderateJoe


    Are you comparing my arguments to the canard of invoking Hitler...??

    If so, then you can shove it.  My logic is sound. 

    Or maybe you could get better at either making viable arguments or actually disproving mine.
     

  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    posted at 10/7/2011 2:40 PM EDT

    Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin get abused rhetorically by liberals on a daily basis. Anything goes. A book full of lies and slander is used against Palin.

    Problem with such treatment, lefties ? 
    Why, no, just a joke........ What's the matter, no sense of humor? 

    Now, one rather witty throwaway line by Scott Brown using all of two words against the sainted moonbat professor, and all of a sudden the "deep thinking" kicks in, about double standards, and sexism, and society, and "rhetorical constructs"  .  
    It was just a joke, and a rather good one, actually.
     

LOG IN TO COMMENT
Already registered? Just log in:
E-mail:
Password:

Forgot your password?

Please note, if you've previously registered with Facebook on Boston.com, for security reasons, you will be required to create a Boston.com password to access the area of the site. Please click here to create your password.
Not registered? Signing up is easy:
Please take a minute to register. After you register and pick a screen name, you can publish your comments everywhere on the site. Posting Policy .
Register