« Racial Focus Distracting Us from Income Inequality | lifelongdem's Blog | Belated Praise for Hillary's Outstanding Speech »
Now that's what I call sexism
No ambiguity here. Robert Mugabe says of the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Jendayi Frazer:
"You saw that little American girl [U. S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer] trotting around the globe like a prostitute..."
If this seems like a great year to nuke Iran, why not bestow a small tactical warhead on Zimbabwe's "President"?
"You saw that little American girl [U. S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer] trotting around the globe like a prostitute..."
If this seems like a great year to nuke Iran, why not bestow a small tactical warhead on Zimbabwe's "President"?
Advertisement
May 26, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow.
You want to bomb a country because of what Mugabe said?
And the women and children too?
She's not worth that. I don't think you think she is.
Are you really that offended?
With all of the former British land owners still angry over the transfer of lands and wealth. And the crushing of the Zimbabwe economy by the EU till famine ensues. And various provocatures in the election. Mayhem on all sides of the government, every party and tribe.
Your solution is for US intervention by bombing them because he called a Bush appointee a prostitute.
Why is there a naval fleet on the coast of Africa that was deployed even before violence erupted? Why have countries in Africa asked that they be removed? But no success?
May 26, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, a deluded Mugabe supporter blaming the rest of the world for this madman running his country into the ground - it is the EU, the US, and other African countries.
The inanity of the original post does not mean we accept your inane defense of a violent, crazed dictator who has ruined the country.
May 26, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am saddened to see such a suggestion made on the pages of a supposedly progressive site. The people of Zimbabwe suffered through British imperialism, through a bloody war of liberation, and through several years of dictatorship. In brief, they merit our help, not attack. You suggestion of subjecting them to nuclear attack because your feminist sensibilities were tweaked is appalling. Bad enough that John McCain or Hillary Clinton mouth such sentiments in cynical efforts to convince the voters they are tough. Advocating mass murder to advance one's career interests in sufficient for us to reject such candidates. But to see these sentiments expressed only because one's sensibilities were offended is itself terribly offensive. You need to re-think the kind of person you want to be, because the evidence from this posting suggests that you have lost your moral compass.
May 26, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
While not condoning the idea of violence against any citizen of Zimbabwe, I do think that the sort of sexist (too soft a word - deeply misogynistic?) comment quoted in this post is an indicator of how Mugabe sees people in general: as his playthings, his subjects, who can be violated as he wishes. And the fact that he is comfortable expressing such a thought openly is chilling, indeed, and says volumes about the state of civilization in his country.
No, such speech should not be tolerated, should not be written off as the product of an inferior culture. We should give Zimbabweans more credit for that, many of whom (at least the women) would probably laugh heartily in agreement with the sentiments expressed in the post.
May 26, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know anything about the history of Zimbabwe.
You're making up shit as you go along.
May 26, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly do you disagree with? That women in Zimbabwe feel anger toward Mugabe? That it is appalling that he would openly display his misogynistic self? Do you think he does, in fact, accurately represent the culture of his country? I doubt it - I expect the ambient culture is morally far superior to its leader. I would also suspect that a majority of Zimbabweans would just as soon see him out of power and out of the country. The only demonstrably morally "inferior" group in the country is Mugabe and the small cadre of sycophants who keep him in power. On which points do we disagree?
May 26, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the one where I said you don't know anything about the history of Zimbabwe and just making up shit as you go along.
Because you ARE making a lot of presumptive shit up as you go along. To argue with you about the merits would be exhausting because you have a need to be right in this argument instead of morally disgusted at the content of the post. You have no moral standard. You and the original poster need not be entertained by debate for supplication of your ego.
The end.
May 26, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet you quasar have posted nothing about the history of Zimbabwe. So maybe you need to brush off your Mugabe bible and enlighten us. Some of us do know "shit" about Zimbabwe and know enough that you seem to lack any reasonable sense about what is going on there.
Shutting down media, seizing farms illegally (and watch production plummet), killing and attacking political party and civil society opponents, creating inflation over 100,000%, driving out foreign investment, killing small business, siphoning millions out of the country for his own use.
What a leader!
May 26, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sound very angry and rageful, presumably not on account of a couple of strangers on the Web. The statements about Zimbabwe are factual. The piling on this poster for the nuc comment seems a bit much, though understandable on some level, I suppose. I think some discussion of the emotion underlying the post would be a more productive approach here, but I'll move on to another post.
May 26, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "angry and rageful" post above was directed at quasar. MMW, thanks for your comment, which arrived sandwiched between mine and the one above you. So complicated, these threads!
May 26, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
See ya!
May 26, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mugabe is a dictator who keeps himself in power through violence and intimidation. Why would one think that his words "are the product of an inferior culture"? The people of Zimbabwe haven't the ability to monitor his words and are not responsible for them. More offensive than his words, however, are the words in this post that suggest dropping a nuclear bomb on Zimbabwe. Insults are one thing. Suggestions of mass murder are another. I'm less concerned with Robert Mugabe's words that are reported here than I am with the words of the person reporting his words. There probably are people in Zimbabwe who wouldn't wish Mugabe well, but I doubt many of them would wish a nuclear attack on Zimbabwe. Let's show a bit of care in what we express. Sexual insults are wrong, but making off-hand joking threats about dropping nuclear weapons isn't a good response.
May 26, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a "Zimbabwe supporter".
But you're accustomed to saying things of this sort aren't you? You're pretty stupid. Here's some of your gems.
#
No, he was not shot. He lost control of his motorcycle and crashed.
Posted at May 24, 2008 8:54 PM in response to Assassins' Gate
#
Wow, I thought you all were saying Obama was the bitter one?
This however has to take the cake for inane and bitter posting. Next time I urge you to sober up and drink your coffee before posting so as not to embarass yourself further.
Posted at May 7, 2008 6:15 AM in response to Michelle: Still not ready for prime time
#
Eric, Eric, Eric:
Please read crosstabs and analyze before taking pollster's analysis at face value. The demographics are skewed by age and race. AA will be much higher turnout and undersamples, some might say, the younger demographic. Also, Obama at only 60% of AA vote!
I am surprised IA released this.
Posted at May 1, 2008 9:08 AM in response to Poll: Hillary Takes Slim Lead In North Carolina
#
Oh you are so naive. Why does this matter? I am more concerned with reverends, snipers, husbands, tax returns, weathermen pardoned and not, flag pins, and pantsuits. These are the issues that the next American president needs to address and not pointless issues such as foreign policy. I mean, "foreign?"
Posted at April 28, 2008 4:31 PM in response to Why Am I Only Hearing About This Now???
#
I just wrote MoveOn and asked to be removed as a member.
Silliness on this issue - Fox is not going away, boycotting will not make it into Liberal media, and failing to reach Fox viewers will sure be one component of a failed GE campaign.
Posted at April 28, 2008 3:52 PM in response to MoveOn Hammers Obama For Fox News Appearance
#
And Rasmussen, nationally - Obama 49, Clinton 41.
I suggest TPM should lead the media and become a model for not headlining only one poll. This approach has been used by the media, too often using their own polls and ignoring the 47 other polls that have been done in the interim. Or one is picked because it fits with some storyline. Thus CNN - Gallup is headlined, Newsweek is metioned in text (where Obama leads), and others such as Rasmussen are not shown.
Any one poll by itself has weaknesses when used as a predictor or even as a reliable snapshot. Gallup and Rasmussen have weaknesses though I used the two to show the problem with headlining one poll. What should be headlined is clear trends or reliable polls of polls. This now hurts Obama but earlier it hurt Clinton, depending on how the media plays it at moment.
Posted at April 28, 2008 11:23 AM in response to Polls: Hillary And Obama Dead Even Nationally -- And In Indiana
#
That is unique donors. If you give 5 times like I have, it registers as 1. So those are new donors. I suppose the counter could be off as well as I do not know if it is set up to immediately recognize that I have already given.
Also, Clinton had 100,000 donors in 24 hours post PA win, so this number is not that unusual.
Posted at April 24, 2008 8:41 PM in response to 78,000 donors?!!??
#
His problem is he cannot simply come out, as some pundits suggest, and cut her off at the knees. Why? Because he has run a campaign based on hope and positive feelings (with some nastiness here and there but hope for change in politics is his basic campaign theme). So these pundits question whether he can hit back and fight back - yet the second he does the media will say he has abandoned his hope theme and is playing same old politics. So he is boxed into a very strange corner.
Not winning PA is nothing. A 9 point margin, as it seems it will be, is not terrible. The state is Oldest one, large white %, catholic. These are Hillary's demographics and advertising does not shift large %'s of people who are fairly committed and have watched the campaign since last year - advertising works at the margins in a campaign that is this far into it. She was also lucky this state was waiting on April 22. If it had been Super Tuesday and no PA awaiting her, she would be toast.
Posted at April 23, 2008 9:34 AM in response to Obama has a problem.
#
redstateleroy:
Very sad if you do not see what is wrong with this ad. I guess the past 7 years of bush-Cheney fear mongering have been more effective than I thought since a democrat can now use those tools and people do not notice it.
Sad that America has changed in this way.
Posted at April 21, 2008 7:38 PM in response to WOW, IT FINALLY HAPPENED
May 26, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Above was in reply to MMW.
May 26, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your point of posting every comment of mine?
Still haven't seen you exhibit any knowledge of Zimbabwe, have we? But then you must have been busy with that amazing post of my past comments.
May 26, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posting your comments should have showed anyone that you have a poor grasp of communication.
What lands did Mugabe "seize"?
The ones that the Queen told the white Afrikaners to hand over after the releasing of colonial rule? The few that wanted to hold on to "their ownership"? First through court action, then squatting, then another British warning?
After awhile the Queen said "You're on your own".
He didn't create the inflation. Inflation is not created in a bubble. The foreign investment that remained put a strangle hold on the economy. There was no willing investment in the new ownership of farms. And exports skyrocketed. Others were not willing to invest in order to "punish" the country, especially in commodities. So near famine almost ensued. Mugabe did not want to convert to the EU currency and be under the control of the EU. So he tried to stick it out.
So yeah, he's in a paranoid state.
But after black ownership. Many had it in for him.
Like I said you need to look at the history.
May 26, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to remember that they were calling the rebels in Darfur terrorist at one point.
Africa is rich in many resources. It's odd that China and the US has so much military presence there.
May 26, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
O...and when you hear Pat Robertson start talking crazy. He's just mad because he had to give up his part ownership in the DeBeers diamond mines. DeBeers gave up the mines easier than he did.
So ignore the religious rights rantings about Africa.
May 26, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch, quasar make me kry...
Despite that and despite the fact 99% of readers can read and understand my posts and realize they are responses, let us discuss a few facts here.
1. There were white landowners who had rights to the land they were on. Zimbabwe is now an independent country and their right to ownership was accepted in Zimbabwe - fact. Then Mugabe, as the country crumbled around him, encouraged violent takeovers of white-owned farms. Fact. So discussing old British warnings is irrelevant - read some history in the last couple decades and bring yourself up to speed.
2. Inflation - yes, he did create the inflation and it is not created in a bubble. Of course foreign investment fled and did not come back - there is no rule of law; contracts are routinely violated; corruption is rampant and getting worse. Perfect investment environment. And no willing investment in new farms. Excuse me but the farms we are talking about had the investment of their owners and local banks. They were seized, carved into small untenable sizes, and run by people with no clear knowledge of farming and no assets to invest. Who exactly did not invest in these farms - the government of Mugabe did not for sure. But then again he wasn't really concerned about productivity was he?
3. Convert to EU currency. Excuse me but your ignorance is showing clear now. I assume you mean the Euro - most people actually know the names of the currencies. And the Euro is not the "EU currency" anyways. Many EU members use it and some do not. There is no requirement for an EU member to use the Euro (see UK as example). And not adopting a currency is not a cause of inflation over 100,000 percent - check your economic facts (and oh yeah, some say it is now 1 million %).
And even if the stories you weave were true, that makes Mugabe an okay guy and justifies his regime's murdering and beating media, civil society, and political party activists? It justifies withholding election results for over a month? It justifies siphoning money out of the country?
But I am glad I met a Mugabe supporter. You all are so rare.
May 26, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't the EU looking into using another currency besides the Euro?
For the rest of your post relying on my information but then rearranging it into your "type" of communication.
You say "Even if the stories you weave are true...."
Why don't you first see if they are. Instead of injecting hyperbole.
You prove nothing in your opinion. You just respond. Badly. Without shame.
May 26, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that Pat Robertson. The one that said it was a good idea to "go after" Chavez because of his socialist ideas.
I'll stop now.
May 26, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that Robertson remark comes out of left (or rather right) field.
And the "they" that were calling the rebels in Darfur terrorists.
Seems we have gotten away from Mugabe, haven't we.
But as they say, you go your way and I'll go mine. The sins of colonialism past and cultural and economic imperialism present should not be an excuse for violent dictatorial rulers to ruin their countries.
May 26, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
whatevah.
May 26, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
But your view that it can be overlooked to bomb a country of innocents because of one man's comment is O SO MORAL.
You're an ass.
May 26, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary sure can do it can't she?
She can implant an image two, three fold that can cause world upheaval.
Just the mention of "Zimbabwe" can bring out the worse in people.
Ain't Hillary grand?
May 26, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ane dare not insult a woman by calling her a name, else one will be called the name "mysoginist" and "woman-hater" and be subjected to all sorts of righteous-lunatic abuse.
And I'll bet this bully hiding behind the word "feminist" regularly uses the word "prick" without any sense of shame, even though it is the equivalent of the four-letter word beginning with "c" that women hate so much.
Abusive hypocrite.
May 26, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 27, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
<blockquote> fail
May 27, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
My original comment simply attempted, obviously without success, to inject:
1) a vivid example of indisputable sexism into TPM discussions, where we often debate the presence or absence of subtler varieties in domestic politics; and,
2) to remind people of the domestic administration we would like to escape, by presenting an absurd Bush-league response - "If somebody does anything you don't like, nuke 'em," with a a little irony thrown in because this administration isn't exactly in the forefront of the fight for gender equality.
It struck me that there's a certain pleasure in contemplating, by contrast, this reminder of what we all have to gain in terms of the rational defense of important causes if we get a sane Democrat in the White House instead of an incompetent gang of half-baked belligerents.
I did not intend to provoke a debate about nuking Zimbabwe over an offensive remark. I carefully confined my suggestion of nuking to the nuking of a single person, Mugabe himself. Starting a real nuclear war, or a nuclear verbal exchange between TPM visitors, was inadvertent collateral damage. My apologies.
May 27, 2008 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't apologize - it was clear if not as subtly presented to make it clear to all readers.
The replies, mostly those by quasar, reflected no understanding of irony and then devolved into a rather convoluted defense of Mugabe peppered with insults hurled at those of us who actually think Mugabe is a dictatorial and abusive freak who has led his country into ruin.
Perils of drunk blogging perhaps? Or blog-rage? Who knows?
May 27, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the kind, rational words.
Maybe camomile tea should be the blogging beverage of choice.
May 27, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink