Sarah Palin resigns

[StiffMittens]

That's not what he said. Geez, reading comprehension folks...this isn't difficult!

Unless you seriously equate "too feminine" with "too much of a woman". I do not, nor do I think most people. Maybe you can start by looking up the definition of "feminine".

Does this help your case?

fem·i·nine
Pronunciation:
\ˈfe-mə-nən\
Function:
adjective
1: female 1a(1)2: characteristic of or appropriate or unique to women <feminine beauty> <a feminine perspective>3: of, relating to, or constituting the gender that ordinarily includes most words or grammatical forms referring to females <a feminine noun>4 a: being an unstressed and usually hypermetric final syllable <a feminine ending> bof rhyme : having an unstressed final syllable c: having the final chord occurring on a weak beat <music in feminine cadences>

'cause I don't think it does.

Interesting definition, since it's completely different from what my Merriam-Websters dictionary says (which is where I looked):

First definition: Having the qualities of a woman; becoming or appropriate to the female sex; as, in a good sense, modest, graceful, affectionate, confiding; or, in a bad sense, weak, nerveless, timid, pleasure-loving, effeminate
Second definition: befitting or characteristic of a woman especially a mature woman; "womanly virtues of gentleness and compassion"

Looking at this, I see things that are not necessarily attributible to women, such as modesty, grace, affection, weakness, weak nerves, timidity, being effeminate, gentleness and compassion.

Seeing that, perhaps you can see why aspects of femininity can certainly be seen in males as well as females. Thus, back to bk's statement, he's probably referring only to those aspects of femininity listed above that would typically be seen as negative when he made his statement (weakness, weak nerves, timidity, gentleness and compassion).

I got that definition from Merriam-Websters online:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminine

[mpjh]

My opinion is not one sided, and it is shared by about seven million voters more than those that find Palin acceptable. So I would say that is a substantial majority. It is a conclusion I have come to after seeing Republicans in office for eight of the worst years in our history, where our rights were trampled most severely, and our blood shed most needlessly. I see no reason to be ashamed of the opinion.

[StiffMittens]

First definition: Having the qualities of a woman; becoming or appropriate to the female sex; as, in a good sense, modest, graceful, affectionate, confiding; or, in a bad sense, weak, nerveless, timid, pleasure-loving, effeminate
Second definition: befitting or characteristic of a woman especially a mature woman; "womanly virtues of gentleness and compassion"

Looking at this, I see things that are not necessarily attributible to women, such as modesty, grace, affection, weakness, weak nerves, timidity, being effeminate, gentleness and compassion.

Seeing that, perhaps you can see why aspects of femininity can certainly be seen in males as well as females. Thus, back to bk's statement, he's probably referring only to those aspects of femininity listed above that would typically be seen as negative when he made his statement (weakness, weak nerves, timidity, gentleness and compassion).

Are you saying that you think compassion is a negative or that most people see compassion as a negative?

As for BK's statement, I'd agree that Palin is weak, but that isn't specifically a feminine quality. As for grace, timidity or gentleness, I don't recall anything in Palin's public persona that would indicate any of these things. She's been a bull in a china shop from the get go.

[Woodruff]

Oh well, everyone has their priorities. I don't want to be a moderator so badly that I have to act like Palin is sane or not a right-wing fanatic. Besides, I am a moderator in Society of Cooks only.

You're still representing the site. You should keep that in mind.

Oh well, everyone has their priorities. I don't want to be a moderator so badly that I have to act like Palin is sane or not a right-wing fanatic. Besides, I am a moderator in Society of Cooks only.

You should probably resign you are to opinionated. Hard to be a moderator when your opinion is so one sided. It's not just this issue.

It's not his being opinionated that's the problem, I don't think (several of the mods are pretty opinionated and being opinionated is a good thing in my opinion). It's HOW he represents those opinions (with slurs and insults) that is likely to be a problem with the site's leadership.

[mpjh]

Just remember, truth is an absolute defense, and public figures are expected to get some rough treatment.

[Woodruff]

First definition: Having the qualities of a woman; becoming or appropriate to the female sex; as, in a good sense, modest, graceful, affectionate, confiding; or, in a bad sense, weak, nerveless, timid, pleasure-loving, effeminate
Second definition: befitting or characteristic of a woman especially a mature woman; "womanly virtues of gentleness and compassion"

Looking at this, I see things that are not necessarily attributible to women, such as modesty, grace, affection, weakness, weak nerves, timidity, being effeminate, gentleness and compassion.

Seeing that, perhaps you can see why aspects of femininity can certainly be seen in males as well as females. Thus, back to bk's statement, he's probably referring only to those aspects of femininity listed above that would typically be seen as negative when he made his statement (weakness, weak nerves, timidity, gentleness and compassion).

Are you saying that you think compassion is a negative or that most people see compassion as a negative?

I was speaking in terms of "typically seen as negative" and only in terms of political strength, not in terms of everyday life. It's a tremendous positive in everyday life (though sadly, some people seem to be moving away from thinking it is), but not seen that way in political terms.

[mpjh]

Oh well, everyone has their priorities. I don't want to be a moderator so badly that I have to act like Palin is sane or not a right-wing fanatic. Besides, I am a moderator in Society of Cooks only.

You're still representing the site. You should keep that in mind.

Oh well, everyone has their priorities. I don't want to be a moderator so badly that I have to act like Palin is sane or not a right-wing fanatic. Besides, I am a moderator in Society of Cooks only.

You should probably resign you are to opinionated. Hard to be a moderator when your opinion is so one sided. It's not just this issue.

It's not his being opinionated that's the problem, I don't think (several of the mods are pretty opinionated and being opinionated is a good thing in my opinion). It's HOW he represents those opinions (with slurs and insults) that is likely to be a problem with the site's leadership.

You got a problem, file a complaint.

[Woodruff]

Just remember, truth is an absolute defense, and public figures are expected to get some rough treatment.

Truth is NOT an absolute defense when your presentation brings discredit to the site. There's a vast difference between presenting a perfectly valid and accurate position with a rational, reasoned argument and presenting that very same position with insults and innuendo. I believe it would be in your interests to recognize those differences and implement them, but that's your call.

Oh well, everyone has their priorities. I don't want to be a moderator so badly that I have to act like Palin is sane or not a right-wing fanatic. Besides, I am a moderator in Society of Cooks only.

You're still representing the site. You should keep that in mind.

Oh well, everyone has their priorities. I don't want to be a moderator so badly that I have to act like Palin is sane or not a right-wing fanatic. Besides, I am a moderator in Society of Cooks only.

You should probably resign you are to opinionated. Hard to be a moderator when your opinion is so one sided. It's not just this issue.

It's not his being opinionated that's the problem, I don't think (several of the mods are pretty opinionated and being opinionated is a good thing in my opinion). It's HOW he represents those opinions (with slurs and insults) that is likely to be a problem with the site's leadership.

You got a problem, file a complaint.

You don't seem to understand. I don't have a problem with it (at this point). But that doesn't mean someone won't (in fact, I would say it's likely). I would presume that you take some satisfaction and pride in contributing to the site through the ability to be a moderator, so I'm simply trying to point out that you might not be on the right track toward keeping the position. Again however, that's your call.

[mpjh]

I can take care of myself, thankyou.

[Dancing Mustard]

I can take care of myself, thankyou.

I took care of myself directly into a wad of Kleenex last night.

[pimpdave]

Oh well, everyone has their priorities. I don't want to be a moderator so badly that I have to act like Palin is sane or not a right-wing fanatic. Besides, I am a moderator in Society of Cooks only.

You should probably resign you are to opinionated. Hard to be a moderator when your opinion is so one sided. It's not just this issue.

This is ridiculous.

You have any idea how opinionated Night Strike is? And he lets that influence his modding big time. Also, he's a mod with somewhat expansive power, unlike mpjh who is only a mod for Society of Cooks. Please... if he should be removed then no one should be allowed to start or mod sub-forums.

[Dancing Mustard]

You have any idea how opinionated Night Strike is? And he lets that influence his modding big time.

True dat.

Also, he's a mod with somewhat expansive power

...until now. This recent bout of changes has seen him shuffled off into the tournaments section (or somewhere equally irrelevant to me). So I guess we can all breathe a little bit easier now that "saying Obama is not the antichrist = Trolling" and "saying 'f*ck you LIBERALS!!! Liberals are all GAY!!! You liberal FAGZ!!!' = logical reasoned non-trolling debate" are no longer enforced rules around here.

[thegreekdog]

I know... because so many times all these conservatives say stuff like that. What we really need is a moderator of debate. Someone to automatically shout "straw man" at every argument put forward. Something like that would work well I think. Anyone accused of using a straw man argument should get a 6 month forum ban. Bastards!!!

STRAW MAN!

[Dancing Mustard]

I know... because so many times all these conservatives say stuff like that.

No really... some of them actually get pretty close. BradleyBadly was the poster boy for it, and PopeBen, Nobunagger and Bedub often get pretty close.

Anyway, the real point is that Nighty was a flagrantly partisan mod, who used to crack-down hard on left-wingers making mildly snarky comments, but would turn two blind eyes to flagrant abuse-hurling and trolling by people who were advocating right-wing causes that he believed in.

I mean, say what the bollocks you like about climate change, but on this subject the debate really is over.

Nighty had a clear and manifest right-wing bias: Fact.

[thegreekdog]

I know... because so many times all these conservatives say stuff like that.

No really... some of them actually get pretty close. BradleyBadly was the poster boy for it, and PopeBen, Nobunagger and Bedub often get pretty close.

Anyway, the real point is that Nighty was a flagrantly partisan mod, who used to crack-down hard on left-wingers making mildly snarky comments, but would turn two blind eyes to flagrant abuse-hurling and trolling by people who were advocating right-wing causes that he believed in.

I mean, say what the bollocks you like about climate change, but on this subject the debate really is over.

Nighty had a clear and manifest right-wing bias: Fact.

Admittedly, I have not been around a long time, but I never saw the partisanship. The only user I can remember getting busted is bkbarunt for some homophobic rant; and he's hardly liberal (or conservative for that matter).

[Snorri1234]

Silly me. I equate femininity with softness. I love a soft vulnerable woman. I would suggest that the average woman is softer both emotionally and physically than the average man. Is that a sexist view? Do i give a flying f*ck if it is? Well now that we have the hard questions out of the way . . .


Honibaz

That's not what's sexist, it's the idea that having those qualities makes one less fit for politics. Surely being soft in politics is not very useful, but merely being soft does not mean one outs that softness everywhere and to the same degree.

[pimpdave]

Admittedly, I have not been around a long time, but I never saw the partisanship. The only user I can remember getting busted is bkbarunt for some homophobic rant; and he's hardly liberal (or conservative for that matter).

Most of us have learned by now that complaining about a completely bullshit, unjustifiable, and devoid of any evidence banning on the forums is a recipe for fail.

It's best to work in the shadows, reminding the mods regularly that so-and-so is abusive. Maybe our constant petitioning of those with actually reasonable characters has resulted in some real change. Man, I'm glad to see Night Strike go. I really, really disliked him as a mod. I won't go into detail though, because although it's all true, it could be completely misinterpreted as "flaming".

So, greekdog, take our word for it. Perhaps if you had to endure the trite confrontations with someone who was so obviously biased, wrong, and in power, that we have, you would.

[thegreekdog]

Admittedly, I have not been around a long time, but I never saw the partisanship. The only user I can remember getting busted is bkbarunt for some homophobic rant; and he's hardly liberal (or conservative for that matter).

Most of us have learned by now that complaining about a completely bullshit, unjustifiable, and devoid of any evidence banning on the forums is a recipe for fail.

It's best to work in the shadows, reminding the mods regularly that so-and-so is abusive. Maybe our constant petitioning of those with actually reasonable characters has resulted in some real change. Man, I'm glad to see Night Strike go. I really, really disliked him as a mod. I won't go into detail though, because although it's all true, it could be completely misinterpreted as "flaming".

So, greekdog, take our word for it. Perhaps if you had to endure the trite confrontations with someone who was so obviously biased, wrong, and in power, that we have, you would.

I guess I will then. My view on these types of things is that this is "their" website and they can do what they wish. I vehemently argued against the removal of Flame Wars. I think the reasoning was flawed and that the removal of that forum was conterproductive to the reasoning. However, once the rules are in place, I try to abide by them. I guess if I were subjected to constant threats, I wouldn't be so calm about it.

[Night Strike]

Anyway, the real point is that Nighty was a flagrantly partisan mod, who used to crack-down hard on left-wingers making mildly snarky comments, but would turn two blind eyes to flagrant abuse-hurling and trolling by people who were advocating right-wing causes that he believed in.

Really? You've never looked into my PM box, so how would you know who I have and have not warned? It's not my fault that several of you that have liberal views are the ones posting the flames, spam, trolls, and other items against the community guidelines.

[F1fth]

The community guidelines lost a lot of credibility during that whole "personal information" fiasco.

The very first instance of punitive action taken under that rule, if I recall correctly, was done before the rule was even mentioned publicly. Still to this day the modus operandi regarding it is "personal info is OK unless we say it's not (i.e. don't like you)" even though the administration told us it was "no personal info ever even with permission" and banned an entire clan to try to prove the point. Community guidelines... yeah right.

I'm glad those days are behind us.

Oh and to not derail the topic: Sarah Palin just makes me laugh.

[spurgistan]

As mayor, she had rape victims pay for their own rape kits. Hilarious!

Trust me, my biggest problem was not that Palin didn't have enough "international experience." It was that we came dreadfully close to nearly electing a 71year old man wiith a history of heart problems who would almost inevitably not live out a term and yield the presidency to a person so catastrophically unfit for national office, it's midboggling. If nothing else, her abuse of the powers of state show her to be an incredibly petty person.

[thegreekdog]

As mayor, she had rape victims pay for their own rape kits. Hilarious!

Trust me, my biggest problem was not that Palin didn't have enough "international experience." It was that we came dreadfully close to nearly electing a 71year old man wiith a history of heart problems who would almost inevitably not live out a term and yield the presidency to a person so catastrophically unfit for national office, it's midboggling. If nothing else, her abuse of the powers of state show her to be an incredibly petty person.

Two people come to mind with similar qualities - Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. I hate her too (for her politics, not anything else)... but, I mean... inexperience? C'mon.

[Dancing Mustard]

It's not my fault that several of you that have liberal views are the ones posting the flames, spam, trolls, and other items against the community guidelines.

...and it's not my fault that when you were responsible for moderating this forum, you were completely blind to all of the flames, spam, trolling, and other community guideline breaching behaviour by people who were advocating points of view that you believed in. It's also not my fault that while you were moderating this forum you repeatedly invented new and novel unwritten rules in order to ban people whose ideologies you disagreed with, never once targeting a conservative with the same form of retrospective/arbitrary censure.

Sorry Nighty, but you damned yourself with your own hands. We all saw how you operated and now we're free to talk about it (as you can no longer continue to deliberately confuse 'left-wingers pointing out obvious moderation errors' as 'trolling'). No amount of bluster and protested innocence is going to make us all magically forget your long career of flagrantly partisan moderating.

[PLAYER57832]

Silly me. I equate femininity with softness. I love a soft vulnerable woman. I would suggest that the average woman is softer both emotionally and physically than the average man. Is that a sexist view? Do i give a flying f*ck if it is? Well now that we have the hard questions out of the way . . .


Honibaz

Men are stronger physically, but emotionally ... What men call strength is often shutting down, shutting out, rather than actually dealing with things. It takes one kind of strength to go off and fight a war. It takes another to pick up the pieces, run things, take care of the kids and pick things up afterward, just to name one classic example. The real truth is that men and women are just funamentally different .. though not necessarily in the stereotypical ways.

If you want to see the strength of a woman, just try to get between her and her kids!!!

I know you have been around the block a few times and have a clue about a few things, but the most classic example of wrong stereotypes I remember is when I was out digging up bulbs a few years back. This young er..."gentleman" sidled up and asked me "ain't ya got a man to do that for you?". Normally, I would have just let the comment slide by, but this time I turned to him and asked "why?". He got a smirk on his face and declared, "well, its kind of dirty ain't it?". I just looked at him and asked "yep .. not at all like cleaning toilets and dirty diapers, is it?".

Asking if men or women are stronger is sort of like asking if a pianist or a scuplter is more skilled. We are just different.

[PLAYER57832]

Silly me. I equate femininity with softness. I love a soft vulnerable woman. I would suggest that the average woman is softer both emotionally and physically than the average man. Is that a sexist view? Do i give a flying f*ck if it is? Well now that we have the hard questions out of the way . . .


Honibaz

That's not what's sexist, it's the idea that having those qualities makes one less fit for politics. Surely being soft in politics is not very useful, but merely being soft does not mean one outs that softness everywhere and to the same degree.

Ironically, this broaches on a pet topic of mine. I think the problem is not that women need to "be men" to lead. We are often pushed into those molds, but the real strength of men and women is not to be clones, but to each be oruselves, together.

That means looking at real people, not stereotypical clones.

I, of course, strongly dislike Sarah Palin. Anybody who thinks the earth is only 12,000 years old lacks the mental capacity I expect from a president.. period. And, sure, her voice is.. a bit unusual and certainly "Saturday Night Live" material. That said, surface appearances aside, she would not be where she is without a certain strength and ability to work with varied people. I would hardly call her "soft" in any real way. She is "soft" like a female bear is soft -- until you get between her and her cubs!