While I do agree that making a judgement based on one angle of a video is a little shallow, you have to consider McCain's record here. He's one of the most famously sexist politicians out there.
Joel_101
· 1 year ago
I am going to bite on this one.
Is there any proof to back up what you say?
As I said on another article - some would say I was a sexist based upon certain evidence. Yet, I do not consider myself one. Not only that - but I do consider myself a person that supports equality regardless of gender or race. Although I might not agree with certain ideas/thoughts etc... I respect the right of others to have them and express them.
wakemenow
· 1 year ago
I'm not into McCain or Palin and wouldn't care one way or the other if the two did run off together to elope. With that said, however, I don't believe this video is showing anything inappropriate taking place. To me, it looks like he's looking over and down at her notes. He breasts are higher up than where he's looking. And men do fiddle with their wedding bands when nervous, and speaking in front of people, introducing your running mate selection, is enough to make anyone nervous. Any ogling likely to take place will probably occur behind closed doors or at least in a less formal, less public setting.
So, yeah, this video clip hasn't demonstrated any wrongdoing in my mind. I would caution folks about jumping to conclusions of this sort, especially without concrete proof. It's so easy to speculate on these matters, especially when we're not fond of the man in the first place.
Lane
· 1 year ago
I can't believe you would put this up on your site. What a shameless partisan viewpoint you have; he's obviously just looking at the podium to her notes or speech.
Keep on hating; it will get you nowhere. When you finally realize that both parties have taken our freedoms and mortgaged our country, it will be too late.
Becky
· 1 year ago
I called into the Allen Handelman show today. The topic was Palin and asking if she was the "most qualified" Republican for the nomination. I said yes, she was, if we were going on her breast size. Yes, I said that on the radio. Ha! He was pretty much just like "yeah whatever" - but I got my 15 seconds and I got to diss Palin, plus, I was right after a comedian, so that was awesome, too!
Joel_101
· 1 year ago
Counterpoint.
There are other quite plausible and logical reasons for what is seen on this video.
If you watch other videos to include interviews by females or you followed live coverage of the debates or you have attended a meeting with him, you might note that he does the thing with his hands a lot. Even when females are not present he tends to the thing with his hand. He also does it when he has no wedding ring on. So alternatives would include many things but comments by friends allude to injuries sustained as a POW.
"Uh, he doesn't wring his hands because he's mad," my friend said. "He does it because he's in pain from the injuries he got as a prisoner of war. His hands hurt constantly, so he rubs them together."
Same videos etc… He tends to look at the podium or off to the side teleprompter frequently, even when he stands next to male speakers….. I suppose this makes him GAY ?
Videos or live interviews by females over the years – not once have I ever noticed his eyes look at a woman’s breasts.
Is he a sexist - I don't know - but how one can come to that conclusion without considering anything else is beyond me.
Lennart Kiil
· 1 year ago
Quoting you: "When it comes to the psychology of men, no one truly understands it as well as women"
You gotta be kidding right?
Joel_101
· 1 year ago
While I do not agree 100% to her statement - it has some merit. As a male, I have difficulty relating to certain things - as I am not a woman - the walk a mile in my shoes thing.
Of course - that is why I cannot agree 100% to the statement.... A female can't walk that mile in my shoes either.
Where it has merit is reflected in females being the recipient of so many things by males. AND the reverse situation is extremely limited due to our society and it's treatment of women historically... in other words, males are not the recipient from females in general... and even if they are... do they really care?
Lennart Kiil
· 1 year ago
Yes, women receive more from men than the reverse:
"Women's lower average net contribution and longer life span means that an average female can expect to receive 2.4 mill. dkr ( ~400.000 $ ) more from the public than she pays. On the other hand the average male can expect to pay 0.8 mill. dkr ( ~133.333 $ ) more than he receives from the public."
This is from an official government report by the Danish government. At the same time men privately spend twice as much on women as the opposite.
So yeah. You are right. Men do spend a lot to help and protect women.
Joel_101
· 1 year ago
Interesting.
And quite frankly easily rationalized, as not all women are in the “workforce” in many countries – including the U.S. – Women receive no monetary credit for staying at home and raising a family. These and other things can skew those kinds of figures.
Again – that can easily be rationalized – if women do not work outside the family – how would they have money to spend? Another skew.
I never said that men spend a lot to help and protect women, nor was that the intended meaning.
Lennart Kiil
· 1 year ago
No, of course you did not.
You were plenty busy focusing on how bad men have treated women.
For you information men generally have not treated women badly. Not now. Not historically.
If you want to believe the feminist dogma there is not much I can do about it, but for you own sake educate yourself.
Nor can the numbers be explained away by workforce participation. The numbers are corrected for that already. By the way, in Denmark men and women participate almost equally in the workforce.
The reason for the difference is that men die young working while women live to become old and thus dependent on the state.
Open your eyes my friend. Things are not what they seem.
Joel_101
· 1 year ago
Not at all. Perhaps in Denmark, as I have not been there in 25 years, I can not say from any recent observation.
If you read my posts elsewhere, you would see that I do not support any dogma. As for educating my self…. I am rolling on the ground laughing. You do not know me and I do not know you, and I would kick myself for saying something like that to someone I have no clue about.
I would propose to you, that if you are correct then the pay scales for women should be increased in Denmark to offset this issue.
In theory it is possible that you know more about Denmark and state feminism in Denmark than I do. I Live here. I am Danish. So the odds are against it.
Pay cannot explain the numbers. The numbers stem from the fact that the welfare state milks men to support single mothers and their illegitimate children.
Self education never harmed anyone. I meant no offense by suggesting it.
Still, I apologize. I read the link and your life history is impressive.
Joel_101
· 1 year ago
I never claimed to know more than you – I thought I clearly stated that I could not say. However, I am not unaware of Denmark. I try to base much of what I say upon personal observation/experience as opposed to other sources, not that education/knowledge/research does not impact my thought process.
But you did say “By the way, in Denmark men and women participate almost equally in the workforce.” Which is what prompted my remark about pay scales.
Yet now you say “The numbers stem from the fact that the welfare state milks men to support single mothers and their illegitimate children.” If this is the case your first statement is in error and I retract my remark. I am not trying to attack you, but trying to clarify what exactly it is that you are trying to say here?
The solution to the problem will not be solved here, but I do suggest that there is a solution that could be fair and equitable for all.
In other posts I have referred to individual responsibility. Here in the U.S. there is a similar issue and it is not gender specific, but revolves around the welfare state in general and how it teaches individuals to shirk individual responsibility and rely on the state to be responsible. Why not use the welfare state to empower individuals to take back that responsibility? These are interesting times for developed countries. Virtual work might just be the key to getting dependant individuals back into a workforce. One problem we face in order to do that is to convince business from outsourcing services beyond our nation. This is by no means the only solution to this issue. I once proposed many years ago to a group of people that recipients of welfare that could physically work are forced to earn that welfare check by participating in local workforces to clean up pollution, trash, sweep streets, and/or participate in other local community programs that help others. It was not well received by some, others started to think. Getting people to think about solutions was the intended result. Empowering individuals costs money to – but the end result is different.
Thank you, but I would suggest that many people around the world have diverse life histories and that labels as well as generalizations can be dangerous when one is trying to communicate an idea, point or thought.
I hear a note of frustration and perhaps anger in the tone of some of your words. I do not know you , but I would also suggest (if you haven’t already) that you consider using that for a constructive purpose. Your nation is facing similar problems and issues just like many others, and Denmark has done some remarkable things for the world to see, particularly with wind energy. I can not oppose a welfare state for any nation due to the fact that world population and longevity leads one to the conclusion that ultimately all states/nations may be welfare states/nations. However, I firmly believe that done right, all may benefit and contribute. Will it ever be 100% fair? Never in another 1000 years (prediction). Can we as human beings make it better than it is? I believe we can.
Lennart Kiil
· 1 year ago
I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
The numbers reflect several issues, but the most important point here is that the welfare state undermines the traditional family and civil society by redistributing resources from successful patterns of behavior and lifestyles to non-successful ones.
The welfare state also undermines the very values and virtues that created the wealth that made the welfare state possible in the first place. Again, by punishing virtue and by rewarding vice.
As such, the welfare state is dysfunctional in the long run. It is not evolutionarily stable, so to speak.
Do not make the mistake. Do not adopt our model.
As to anger and frustration:
Well, I got annoyed by what I saw as the perpetuation of the myth that individual men more or less treated women horrible in the past.
That, in my view, is an oversimplification. The majority of men were just trying to make it. To support their families. They were way too busy to go around oppressing women all the time.
By the way. I will be writing about the welfare state on my blog. You are more than welcome to comment there. I use the disqus system too. (In fact that is how I found this post)
All Comments
Is there any proof to back up what you say?
As I said on another article - some would say I was a sexist based upon certain evidence. Yet, I do not consider myself one. Not only that - but I do consider myself a person that supports equality regardless of gender or race. Although I might not agree with certain ideas/thoughts etc... I respect the right of others to have them and express them.
So, yeah, this video clip hasn't demonstrated any wrongdoing in my mind. I would caution folks about jumping to conclusions of this sort, especially without concrete proof. It's so easy to speculate on these matters, especially when we're not fond of the man in the first place.
Keep on hating; it will get you nowhere. When you finally realize that both parties have taken our freedoms and mortgaged our country, it will be too late.
There are other quite plausible and logical reasons for what is seen on this video.
If you watch other videos to include interviews by females or you followed live coverage of the debates or you have attended a meeting with him, you might note that he does the thing with his hands a lot. Even when females are not present he tends to the thing with his hand. He also does it when he has no wedding ring on. So alternatives would include many things but comments by friends allude to injuries sustained as a POW.
"Uh, he doesn't wring his hands because he's mad," my friend said. "He does it because he's in pain from the injuries he got as a prisoner of war. His hands hurt constantly, so he rubs them together."
Same videos etc… He tends to look at the podium or off to the side teleprompter frequently, even when he stands next to male speakers….. I suppose this makes him GAY ?
Videos or live interviews by females over the years – not once have I ever noticed his eyes look at a woman’s breasts.
Is he a sexist - I don't know - but how one can come to that conclusion without considering anything else is beyond me.
You gotta be kidding right?
Of course - that is why I cannot agree 100% to the statement.... A female can't walk that mile in my shoes either.
Where it has merit is reflected in females being the recipient of so many things by males. AND the reverse situation is extremely limited due to our society and it's treatment of women historically... in other words, males are not the recipient from females in general... and even if they are... do they really care?
"Women's lower average net contribution and longer life span means that an average female can expect to receive 2.4 mill. dkr ( ~400.000 $ ) more from the public than she pays. On the other hand the average male can expect to pay 0.8 mill. dkr ( ~133.333 $ ) more than he receives from the public."
This is from an official government report by the Danish government. At the same time men privately spend twice as much on women as the opposite.
So yeah. You are right. Men do spend a lot to help and protect women.
And quite frankly easily rationalized, as not all women are in the “workforce” in many countries – including the U.S. – Women receive no monetary credit for staying at home and raising a family. These and other things can skew those kinds of figures.
Again – that can easily be rationalized – if women do not work outside the family – how would they have money to spend? Another skew.
I never said that men spend a lot to help and protect women, nor was that the intended meaning.
You were plenty busy focusing on how bad men have treated women.
For you information men generally have not treated women badly. Not now. Not historically.
If you want to believe the feminist dogma there is not much I can do about it, but for you own sake educate yourself.
Nor can the numbers be explained away by workforce participation. The numbers are corrected for that already. By the way, in Denmark men and women participate almost equally in the workforce.
The reason for the difference is that men die young working while women live to become old and thus dependent on the state.
Open your eyes my friend. Things are not what they seem.
If you read my posts elsewhere, you would see that I do not support any dogma. As for educating my self…. I am rolling on the ground laughing. You do not know me and I do not know you, and I would kick myself for saying something like that to someone I have no clue about.
I would propose to you, that if you are correct then the pay scales for women should be increased in Denmark to offset this issue.
http://menstrualpoetry.com/sarah-palin-feminist...
In theory it is possible that you know more about Denmark and state feminism in Denmark than I do. I Live here. I am Danish. So the odds are against it.
Pay cannot explain the numbers. The numbers stem from the fact that the welfare state milks men to support single mothers and their illegitimate children.
Self education never harmed anyone. I meant no offense by suggesting it.
Still, I apologize. I read the link and your life history is impressive.
But you did say “By the way, in Denmark men and women participate almost equally in the workforce.” Which is what prompted my remark about pay scales.
Yet now you say “The numbers stem from the fact that the welfare state milks men to support single mothers and their illegitimate children.” If this is the case your first statement is in error and I retract my remark. I am not trying to attack you, but trying to clarify what exactly it is that you are trying to say here?
The solution to the problem will not be solved here, but I do suggest that there is a solution that could be fair and equitable for all.
In other posts I have referred to individual responsibility. Here in the U.S. there is a similar issue and it is not gender specific, but revolves around the welfare state in general and how it teaches individuals to shirk individual responsibility and rely on the state to be responsible. Why not use the welfare state to empower individuals to take back that responsibility? These are interesting times for developed countries. Virtual work might just be the key to getting dependant individuals back into a workforce. One problem we face in order to do that is to convince business from outsourcing services beyond our nation. This is by no means the only solution to this issue. I once proposed many years ago to a group of people that recipients of welfare that could physically work are forced to earn that welfare check by participating in local workforces to clean up pollution, trash, sweep streets, and/or participate in other local community programs that help others. It was not well received by some, others started to think. Getting people to think about solutions was the intended result. Empowering individuals costs money to – but the end result is different.
Thank you, but I would suggest that many people around the world have diverse life histories and that labels as well as generalizations can be dangerous when one is trying to communicate an idea, point or thought.
I hear a note of frustration and perhaps anger in the tone of some of your words. I do not know you , but I would also suggest (if you haven’t already) that you consider using that for a constructive purpose. Your nation is facing similar problems and issues just like many others, and Denmark has done some remarkable things for the world to see, particularly with wind energy. I can not oppose a welfare state for any nation due to the fact that world population and longevity leads one to the conclusion that ultimately all states/nations may be welfare states/nations. However, I firmly believe that done right, all may benefit and contribute. Will it ever be 100% fair? Never in another 1000 years (prediction). Can we as human beings make it better than it is? I believe we can.
The numbers reflect several issues, but the most important point here is that the welfare state undermines the traditional family and civil society by redistributing resources from successful patterns of behavior and lifestyles to non-successful ones.
The welfare state also undermines the very values and virtues that created the wealth that made the welfare state possible in the first place. Again, by punishing virtue and by rewarding vice.
As such, the welfare state is dysfunctional in the long run. It is not evolutionarily stable, so to speak.
Do not make the mistake. Do not adopt our model.
As to anger and frustration:
Well, I got annoyed by what I saw as the perpetuation of the myth that individual men more or less treated women horrible in the past.
That, in my view, is an oversimplification. The majority of men were just trying to make it. To support their families. They were way too busy to go around oppressing women all the time.
By the way. I will be writing about the welfare state on my blog. You are more than welcome to comment there. I use the disqus system too. (In fact that is how I found this post)