Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Perceptions, portrayals and a bit of etymology thrown in.
Commenter "Alex" refers to Barbara Boxer's "rhetoric" as "shrill (and) hysterical".
I'm not sure if that's his genuine perception, or if it's a portrayal. I didn't find her speech before the senate floor even the slightest bit shrill. Just to be sure, here's the definition of "shrill":
1. High-pitched and piercing in tone or sound: the shrill wail of a siren.
2. Producing a sharp, high-pitched tone or sound: a shrill fife.
3. Sharp or keen to the senses; harshly vivid: shrill colors.
I honestly thought Senator Boxer's tone was measured and modulated to carry well. She never raised her voice, and the pitch was a comfortable level to listen to. I'd advise "Alex" to go and listen again. That's being generous, because I don't think he listened at all. Oh, he may have heard, but he didn't let it sink in, didn't think about what was being said.
I do know this; "shrill" is almost always used to describe women, not men.
*eyebrow up*
Continuing along those lines, let's take a close look at "hysterical".
From "hysteria":
1. Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.
2. A mental disorder characterized by emotional excitability and sometimes by amnesia or a physical deficit, such as paralysis, or a sensory deficit, without an organic cause.
I'm completely baffled. Senator Boxer was controlled, on point, and clearly fearless in being the first person to stand up to Condi's record of falsehoods. She showed no signs of excitation, her memory of Condi's very words was precise and accurate, and she seemed to be in full possession of her wits.
I think "Alex's" use of the word hysterical becomes a bit clearer when we remember that hysteria is related to hysterectomy.
At one time, it was common to remove the uterus as a cure for hysteria. This is a word that also has a very feminine connotation.
Is "Alex" being sexist? Without more input from him, I can't say for sure. But he's using words with an established history of sexism.
Her points were valid. They were well documented. They were presented in a clear, restrained and straightforward manner. But to some folks, any woman speaking truth to power is automatically shrill and hysterical, not matter how right she is.
I'm not sure if that's his genuine perception, or if it's a portrayal. I didn't find her speech before the senate floor even the slightest bit shrill. Just to be sure, here's the definition of "shrill":
1. High-pitched and piercing in tone or sound: the shrill wail of a siren.
2. Producing a sharp, high-pitched tone or sound: a shrill fife.
3. Sharp or keen to the senses; harshly vivid: shrill colors.
I honestly thought Senator Boxer's tone was measured and modulated to carry well. She never raised her voice, and the pitch was a comfortable level to listen to. I'd advise "Alex" to go and listen again. That's being generous, because I don't think he listened at all. Oh, he may have heard, but he didn't let it sink in, didn't think about what was being said.
I do know this; "shrill" is almost always used to describe women, not men.
*eyebrow up*
Continuing along those lines, let's take a close look at "hysterical".
From "hysteria":
1. Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.
2. A mental disorder characterized by emotional excitability and sometimes by amnesia or a physical deficit, such as paralysis, or a sensory deficit, without an organic cause.
I'm completely baffled. Senator Boxer was controlled, on point, and clearly fearless in being the first person to stand up to Condi's record of falsehoods. She showed no signs of excitation, her memory of Condi's very words was precise and accurate, and she seemed to be in full possession of her wits.
I think "Alex's" use of the word hysterical becomes a bit clearer when we remember that hysteria is related to hysterectomy.
At one time, it was common to remove the uterus as a cure for hysteria. This is a word that also has a very feminine connotation.
Is "Alex" being sexist? Without more input from him, I can't say for sure. But he's using words with an established history of sexism.
Her points were valid. They were well documented. They were presented in a clear, restrained and straightforward manner. But to some folks, any woman speaking truth to power is automatically shrill and hysterical, not matter how right she is.
# posted by Jean Dudley @ 3:30 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Yeussh.
"Her points were valid." One only has to look at the Congressional Record to see what was voted upon when the Authorization of Force was agreed to by the Senate, and one would plainly see that WMD was clearly NOT the only justification to drop the gloves with Iraq.
"They were well documented." See item above. Boxer has a tough time with things like the past coming up to bite her in the butt (see Checks, Bouncing).
"They were presented in a clear, restrained and straightforward manner." Senator Boxer's first question in the Judiciary Committee hearing was an oration - not a question - that took more than her entire allotted time, and on several instances directly challenged the integrity of Dr. Rice.
"But to some folks, any woman speaking truth to power is automatically shrill and hysterical, not matter how right she is." Are you talking about Dr. Rice or Senator Boxer? How many times has Senator Boxer been proven dead wrong about facts in her career in the Senate and in the Congress? How many times has she been proven to be "taking both sides of an issue" (remember Robert Packwood)?
And so, when the press calls her on her statement and activity in the committee, what does she do? She turns around on Wolf Blitzer's show and plays the victim card: "I gave Dr. Rice many opportunities to address specific issues. Instead, she said I was impugning her integrity..." Note that this was after a better-than-ten-minute peroration, going over her allotted time, with the only opportunity for Dr. Rice to correct or contravene being after Boxer had dumped on her.
Truth to Power, indeed.
However, I believe Boxer would be a fabulous Presidential candidate. Hell, put SanFranNan on the ticket with her. First, we could see if the two really do exist independently of each other, and second it would result in another well-deserved 49-state ass-kicking.
Oops, I meant donkey-kicking. My bad.
"Her points were valid." One only has to look at the Congressional Record to see what was voted upon when the Authorization of Force was agreed to by the Senate, and one would plainly see that WMD was clearly NOT the only justification to drop the gloves with Iraq.
"They were well documented." See item above. Boxer has a tough time with things like the past coming up to bite her in the butt (see Checks, Bouncing).
"They were presented in a clear, restrained and straightforward manner." Senator Boxer's first question in the Judiciary Committee hearing was an oration - not a question - that took more than her entire allotted time, and on several instances directly challenged the integrity of Dr. Rice.
"But to some folks, any woman speaking truth to power is automatically shrill and hysterical, not matter how right she is." Are you talking about Dr. Rice or Senator Boxer? How many times has Senator Boxer been proven dead wrong about facts in her career in the Senate and in the Congress? How many times has she been proven to be "taking both sides of an issue" (remember Robert Packwood)?
And so, when the press calls her on her statement and activity in the committee, what does she do? She turns around on Wolf Blitzer's show and plays the victim card: "I gave Dr. Rice many opportunities to address specific issues. Instead, she said I was impugning her integrity..." Note that this was after a better-than-ten-minute peroration, going over her allotted time, with the only opportunity for Dr. Rice to correct or contravene being after Boxer had dumped on her.
Truth to Power, indeed.
However, I believe Boxer would be a fabulous Presidential candidate. Hell, put SanFranNan on the ticket with her. First, we could see if the two really do exist independently of each other, and second it would result in another well-deserved 49-state ass-kicking.
Oops, I meant donkey-kicking. My bad.
Holy O Crap you sure get the wacked out commenters here!! I don't think little alexie needed to tell us all he likes showing his ass though, that was readily apparent. And you won't need to ever worry about hearing of him injured in combat either because it's damn unlikely he'd ether serve his country. That kind never do.
Alex,
Have you ever read the IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION?
Have you ever wondered if the UN, Russia, and France knew there wasn't enough of a threat to let loose war on the region?
Have you ever noticed that many of our "coalition" were offered financial incentives by the US to join in this venture? Or that, since it has not turned out as promised they are leaving the "coalition?"
Please think for yourself and not spew predigested rhetoric.
Post a Comment
Have you ever read the IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION?
Have you ever wondered if the UN, Russia, and France knew there wasn't enough of a threat to let loose war on the region?
Have you ever noticed that many of our "coalition" were offered financial incentives by the US to join in this venture? Or that, since it has not turned out as promised they are leaving the "coalition?"
Please think for yourself and not spew predigested rhetoric.
<< Home
