See my add-on above.
And no, I don't think Milbank has the answers either....I was just quote grabbing as I had recalled reading that linked interview a while back.
My first Women4Change meeting
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
See my add-on above.
And no, I don't think Milbank has the answers either....I was just quote grabbing as I had recalled reading that linked interview a while back.
The only reason I even posted anything was to show that there was actual work going on after the marches, because if not, that would have rendered those fairly meaningless. The people that are being dismissive are just living down to their expectations. All while doing nothing but sitting in front of their keyboards criticizing others. Typical,
Did you listen to the 9th circuit argument on Trump's order? The DOJ lawyer needs some serious empowerment training. He was clearly intimidated and two of the judges were clearly out of line. But you can't get there with trendy empowerment classes.
I thought all of them were interesting, but I signed up for the Safety and Dignity one. Being on a college campus, the rape and sexual assault statistics are concerning to me and the funding of Planned Parenthood is also important to young women. When I was in college, I have no idea where I would have gone if there wasn't a PP. I don't think I could ever run for office, as I don't have the temperament for it. That could change, but it's doubtful.
The only reason I posted was to point out the work is fairly meaningless. I have no problem with these kinds of efforts; people should be knowledgeable, involved, and active. But, c'mon, the work has to be relevant to real problems. As I noted a few times, and with a link, doing the hard stuff is what is important for society and the human beings taking part in it. Doing easy stuff, like joining a crowd, doesn't do much. You do easy stuff.
And again, you don't understand education, what the programs are about, yet you KNOW it's a One size fits all and you can't teach it and it won't help them. Again, very good thing you weren't in education and it's obvious you don't know a darn thing about it. If we took your advice , all teachers would just give up on kids and say there's no point, it's not going to help them anyway. Fortunately, that's not what teachers do and we see marked changes in kids every year that have these types of programs implemented. Would you like me to have some students give testimonials of how programs like these have changed their lives?
Doing the easy stuff is the first step toward doing the hard stuff. Perhaps you're trying to dissuade Zeke from getting into that position to make that step, because you don't like the hard stuff she'll accomplish?
Anytime you are in Indianapolis, I'll take you to my school and you can see the easy stuff all teachers do. You couldn't be any more condescending if you tried. You wouldn't last a day doing "the easy stuff."
Back in my prior life as a school district general counsel, I was asked to do an in-service at a Jr. High school where there were a cluster of problems involving parents complaining about teachers, good teachers. The teachers were feeling intimidated by these parents. I adapted a similar program I did for young lawyers who didn't have much courtroom experience. I don't know if I helped the teachers or not, but one thing I absolutely did not do is make them feel like they needed mentoring or empowerment training. FWIW, my stoker was a jr. high teacher, that is a tough job requiring tough people.
That won't work. The hard stuff is not on the agenda she posted about.
Then you didn't read carefully enough, or think things through to their logical end.
I was in education. Everything a lawyer does in court is educating.
I have no idea what you are talking about; I don't think you do either. If you see my comments here as "advice" to teachers, you need to read again.
I have no problem with programs. You are making that up. I have a huge problem with your suggesting that girls or young ladies need different programs than boys or young men. That's not to say that as a group boys and girls are the same, they aren't. But your suggestion that as a group girls and young women need empowerment or whatever is the trendy buzz word, while boys not so much, is bad in the short term and long term.
No I don't know its a one size fits all. But when I am teaching kids not to be intimidated by the person in a black robe who will be judging them, there are commonalities that I think I can convey. And I also believe the skills learned in that context are transferrable to a number of different situations.
It really sounds like you just don't like the idea of women looking out for their own concerns.
It really sounds like you have no clue. I am not talking about women looking our for themselves. I am talking about how Zeke looks out for women. Getting back to what I know, I want kids to be good mock trial advocates, not good women mock trial advocates. I want my associates and partners to be good lawyers, not good women lawyers.
Full circle. I want people to be active and knowledgeable politically. I don't want them to think that is different for women. The large and difficult issues are not about planned parenthood or solvable by marching with pussy hats. The important issues are about a good economy and good jobs. Its about getting more US kids into STEM disciplines, Indian and Asian men are kicking our ass with this, Zeke's agenda doesn't address these issues.
I have no clue? You jumped in this thread to give Zeke shit for no good reason. You've posted countless times, and said nothing. All you've done is glibly dismiss what she considers valuable efforts to improve her community, while making dumb self-aggrandizing remarks ("Every day I'm in a courtroom, I'm educating"). This thread would be a lot shorter, but worlds better, if you had figured out before your first reply that you had exactly nothing to say.
I admit to this.
What have you added here other than to prove once again I live rent free in your head. All your posts are about me.
In all sincerity, good luck with all of those initiatives. The topics sound worthy of investigation and maybe some policy/program recommendations/suggestions.
Just understand, though, that the entire approach taken leaves at least 50% of the population out of the "movement's" scope. Hence I have about a 1% interest level, if that.
When y'all start to work on issues that affect women and men, and children for that matter, such as how a semi-skilled man whose wife chooses/has to stay home can bring home enough pay to afford raising their family without killing himself in the process, you'll have more of my attention. Just to be clear, that same observation applies to the single mother working multiple jobs and killing herself in the process . . . .
All this stuff reminds me of a talk I attended a few weeks back, when the president of the Atlanta chapter of the Urban League spoke about the need to eviscerate symbols of the old south, like high schools named after Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, and the carvings on Stone Mountain. His explanation was that these symbols buttressed the continued domination of the white-supremacist power structure in the US, and getting rid of those symbols would be a prerequisite to resolving the racial divisions in the country. I get where he's coming from, and I really am not invested in keeping those symbols. If they went away tomorrow I'd have no sense of loss. But none of that would resolve much, in my view. My reaction was that getting rid of symbols wouldn't serve the purpose he suggested it would, because power, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and until you have something real to fill that power vacuum no change can or will occur.
My reaction to your post is similar; I don't have much if any interest in this stuff any more because it feels to me more like someone wants to get in front of a "ground swell" of support to garner political power, without providing much in the way of real leadership in exchange. And I don't want to be used like that . . . more than that, I'm not willing to be used like that any more, by any political party or cause, within the framework of the political discourse we currently have.
We need a new framework . . . and we have the opportunity to create that new framework now. I'm just telling you, the Women4Change framework of discourse ain't gonna offer much opportunity to provide the change in political discourse that we need because in the big picture the scope of what it is looking to support is small . . . really small . . . not insignificant or unimportant, but small. So good luck . . . .
Victimhood. The status of the left for women and minorities . Make everyone a victim and pretend to offer them solutions you can't deliver, but you WILL get their votes. Hold a meeting in the fashionable part of town. Listen to issue speeches. Congratulate each other. Accomplished?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I think this is right and is where I really think the liberal movement is struggling right now. The trend should be to move away from identity politics and into a utilitarian viewpoint of politics brought on by economic and social realities. Sope's examples of working people with spouses who stay home to raise their kids is a perfect example. Those kids will get a special upbringing by being raised in the love of a mother (or father) but won't have the household income necessary to live "the good life."
This has precisely nothing to do with women or men, and everything to do with modern realities. I'm haunted by the fact that my wife and I chose an upper middle class (bordering on lower upper class) lifestyle because it means we have to both work. I envy those that have the wherewithal to make the conscious decision to forego that lifestyle by having someone stay home.
Long story short: if the Democrats want a fighting chance of getting back into power, they need to revert back to pure classic liberalism and stop the identity politics.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
They are trying to improve people's reading comprehension...and obviously failing miserably.
Why is it not hard to picture you saying
"Honey, you don't need all that empowering crap, you're better than those women. Now, go grab me a beer before you start cooking dinner."
Would you quit being sarcastic because what you post is how I really feel, A dog is a lot better companion than a woman and is always happy to see.
It's funny, Sope, because the person who seems like they are excluding themselves from the conversation is you (and people like you) who see the word Women in the name of the group and think that somehow means you don't have a voice in the conversation. By your logic, people who aren't married shouldn't care about or be invested in the issue you raise of the semi-skilled man whose wife chooses/has to stay home. Heck, by your logic someone who isn't struggling to bring home enough pay to afford raising their family shouldn't have any interest in that situation because it doesn't have their name on it.
As I said to CoH, I'm excited about female empowerment because I'm excited about everybody empowerment. So, I feel very much a part of the Women4Change conversation and have been excited to be a part of the events locally. Because of that, I think you are missing out by removing yourself from the conversation.
IMHO, the evil of "identity politics" meme is a total canard. It's basic sociology. All politics is "identify politics" because it's about bringing together people who share opinions, ideas, and concerns to address those opinions, ideas, and concerns. The Tea Party, BLM, and Women4Change are just different groups of people coming together to share opinions, ideas, and concerns.
Because of changing traffic patterns in my neighborhood, there has been a marked increase of accidents at a nearby intersection. People in the neighborhood have worked together to try to get local government to make some changes to improve safety at the intersection. Isn't that just Columbus Boulevard identity politics?
I love you and Sope, but it seems like for some reason you guys just don't like the identity of the "identity politics" in this case because it doesn't interest you.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I love you too but I fear my brain just doesn't work in a manner in which I can get on board with identity politics. I agree that it's basic sociology, but to revert to basic anything doesn't make it "right." I know you're not advocating such, but basic human instinct is to revert to cognitive dissonance and that's not right.
I suppose I've seen organizations, like the military, not fall victim to identity politics or identity anything and it's massively successful. Yes, it's a hierarchical org with predetermined social and leader structures but it's based on moving towards common goals.
I want our country's communities to move towards common goals of bettering our communities. Identity politics creates us v them situations where us v them are not based on controllable variables.
Appreciate your thoughts, but I disagree that groups of like-minded individuals working together towards their ideas and concerns creates an us vs. them situation. Advocacy isn't a zero-sum game. If it were, wouldn't your want just make the "identity" a geographic area as opposed to other groupings of people?
Good post. You're right about the move the Dems need to make, except, they can't make that move it appears. Their base, George Soros' funding and the voices of the left are too extreme to allow it.
Ha-ha! BTW, you just got kudos from the world's worst poster so I know you are feeling a little bit introspective right now.
First, I think I understand where you are coming from an agree. Using some kind of identity that is independent of one's actual performance to dispense sanctions and rewards is both morally wrong and inefficient. Is that correct?
The problem is that we have implicit biases that lead us to behave in exactly the ways we just agreed are morally wrong and inefficient. The military has been among the world's leaders in helping develop strategies and approaches to counteract those implicit biases. The research suggests that we make progress when we acknowledge such biases and try to counteract them. We run into trouble when we deny they exist or refuse to take them into account.
If, by identity politics, we mean allocating goodies on the basis of identity I think that is generally bad. But if identity politics means recognizing the ways in which implicit bias leads us to unfairly allocate goodies on the basis of identity then I am all in favor. I think there is a difference that matter.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Isn't it far more productive to identify (if one must use that word) a group by a geography or a common goal or as an economic unit rather than by some uncontrollable variable?
Liberals 'care' about the 'disenfranchised' but they don't like them much. Which is why their voting block amounts to assembly of disparate groups, with a watered-down anti-victim message. The DNC, to paraphrase Steve Bannon, needs to shut up and listen.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Those are just different variables. Sometimes they may have value and sometimes they might not. Geography seems like a particularly inefficient one to me, but I think I've already indicated that I think "Identity Politics" is just shorthand for people sharing common goals trying to make progress on things of interest to them. It appears to me that people who oppose "Identity Politics" don't really oppose all "Identity Politics", they just oppose the ones they don't identify with.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I suppose. I guess I'll be clearer in my thought/take:
I don't like identity politics to be played with variables that one can't opt out of (race, gender, etc). It's not that they offend me or that I feel left out, I just don't see it as productive because there's NO WAY that a group (when organized by uncontrollable variables) is able to produce results. Furthermore I think it's just bad politics. If your platform stinks, your platform stinks. Trying to get an identity group to vote for a stinky platform is bad politics.
Can we add a dislike button? This is useless b.s..
I agree with most of that, but it's why I think the whole "Identity Politics" ruse is silliness. Groups need to gather to support specific policies. I see some very specific policy objectives being advanced in most of these groups. So, don't let the short-hand references to a group name fool you into believing there aren't very often some concrete policy objectives uniting people in the group. And just as not everybody in a neighborhood or community (or whatever geographic area) agrees on policy, not everyone in those groups given short-hand names agrees on every policy. But, when they are energized to seek their policy goals, it's awesome and empowering. And to that (which I see in a lot of these movements) I say kudos.
