liz_marcs | About that "women are low-hanging fruit" crack...

Current Mood: irritated

About that "women are low-hanging fruit" crack...

This is why Internet Memes sometimes Sucketh the Big Weenie:

For the past week or so, I've been seeing a meme going around that quotes this statement:

[W]omen are low-hanging fruit, though, in the terms of politics. You can reach up and say, 'I'm pro-choice, he's not.'

Then there follows a few more statements about how "I (LJ-owner-type-person) am not low-hanging fruit and I am insulted to be called thus. Therefore, I am going to prove that I am not low-hanging fruit to the ebil Democratic Party/Barak Obama/Both by (choose one of the following): voting for a third-party candidate/voting for McCain/staying home on election day and not voting at all."

The reason why it's not word for word is because there's some variation on the wording.

However, the following elements are all in place:

The statement that "women are low-hanging fruit" for the Democratic Party, so none of the candidates have to work too hard to win over women
The assumption that either Barack Obama , someone high up in his campaign, or some highly placed Democratic Party official said this statement
To show that women are not low-hanging fruit, they're going to "punish" Obama and/or the Democratic Party come election time by voting Republican or not voting at all

There's just one eensy-meensy-teensy-tiny problem with the above meme:

The low-hanging fruit crack was actually said by Chris Matthews. And the person who said "I agree" to that statement was NBC's political director. (Link to Media Matters.)

In short, no one involved with the Democratic Party or Barack Obama's presidential campaign said the offending statements. So, would someone care to explain to me why anyone is holding Barack Obama and/or the Democratic Party responsible for something a television news "personality" and a NBC network employee said? Especially ~~Tweety~~ Matthews, who during Hillary Clinton's run really went all out to put the "pig" in "male chauvinist pig."

Look, you wanna hold Matthews and MSNBC responsible for that stupid statement? I'm all for it. Sign me up. In fact, let's get the party started over it.

But please stop holding Barack Obama and his campaign for every piece of stupid and/or sexist shit that hits the airwaves, especially when the person saying it is: 1) Not associated with his campaign and; 2) Isn't even acting as a spokesman for the Democratic Party. If Obama and his people say/do something stupid, by all means, hold 'em responsible, but at least hold 'em responsible for something they actually said, as opposed to something someone else said. Just sayin'.

And on that irritated note, I urge you to read this article from award-winning journalist David Neiwert: How right-wing crap polluted Democrats' political waters, which outlines the rightwingnut noise machine may have helped make the Democratic primary race look far more bruising than it actually was in the press, which has, in turn, created a "perception of reality" among the hard-core supporters of both Hillary and Obama.

So, in final note, kiddoes: Please do the world a favor and approach any and all bits of news and Internet memes with a healthy dose of skepticism during this political season.

Gracias muchly.

----------------
Now playing: Amy Winehouse - Rehab
via FoxyTunes

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

THANK YOU.

The talking heads are ruining everything. AGAIN.

When I first saw the meme, I knew right away that there was no way that anyone from the Obama campaign or the Democratic Party said it, yet there seems to be the assumption going around that it came from one of those two sources.

Two seconds on Media Matters clarified the issue fast enough.

And it's not the first time I've seen something attributed to either Obama's campaign (sexist) or Hillary's campaign (racist) only to find out that the source was a talking head or an Internet personality.

What really boggles me is that there are enough actually racist/sexist/painfully awkward things that both candidates said, any number of times before, during, and after the primary. Nobody needs to make this shit up. And yet, they do and it muddies waters that weren't exactly ~~translucent~~ transparent before.

I think part of the reason I live my news-related life through the Daily Show and Fark is that at least in those places, I'll know the bias, if I hadn't already. I know there are people who will fact-check and call foul -- or fail -- and I really, really need that because if I got all my news from even CNN I'd be as air-headed as the people they have gabbering all damned day.

*cough* I have issues with 24/7 news and the culture it's created.

*snort*

Agreed. I'm not burnishing a halo for either side in the primary, because yeah, both sides pulled dog whistles on the other, sometimes intentionally, and sometimes by accident (due to not thinking, misspeaking, and just plain ol' exhaustion).

Yet, there's no denying that there was very much another layer in there where crap was misattributed to one candidate or the other, or to one candidate's supporters or the other's, when it turns out that it came from some kind of "media" source. And you're right, it's boggling trying to sort out what's what and who said what.

The 24/7 news culture has truly left us less informed than we were before, and trying to sort out fact from fiction is more than a full-time job.

Not to mention that hello, there are women who aren't pro-choice. That's not going to be the trump card for all of womankind. It's an insulting statement all around because it makes all kinds of assumptions about how women (who are all the same, doncha know) view political matters. It's like the CNN thing about how black women all had to be conflicted about whether to vote their race or gender in the primaries, because obviously, they're defined by those characteristics.

*snort*

Tell me about it. Back when Edwards was still in the race, there was an assumption being floated in the media that people like me were either racist, sexist, or both. Because, clearly you couldn't support Edwards because you liked his platform better. Oh, no. Never.

So, yeah, I've been the victim of the Media's "Stupid Assumptions Are Stupid" flailing this election season, too.

You vote on issues rather than identity or a media-constructed personality/beauty contest? You weird latte-sipping Boston liberal you.

Very good article, the one linked. Personally I think Clinton and Obama both deserve criticism from a progressive POV for some of the policy positions they've taken/not taken, and probably Clinton more (Iraq being the biggie), but when the criticism is on the basis of right-wing memes, that is bad news all round.

Hey, I like latte. *pouts*

But in all seriousness, I agree that I *wish* Obama and/or Hillary were more progressive. That said, I also think that Obama does represent the potential to push the dialog a little further away from a rightist-dominated discussion to something that's actually centrist with some hope for politically progressive seeds to be planted.

Or rather, I'm holding out hope for the long haul when someone with liberal bonafides could have a hope in hell of being considered a serious candidate. The key, I think, is to push the conversation in that direction.

Agreed. And from the point of view of pushing the conversation in the right direction, I think the movement that's been inspired by Obama could be as or more important than Obama himself - provided they don't shut up shop and say "job done" if and when - insh'allah - they get their man into the Whitehouse on November 4th. They need to be pushing him forwards and also not afraid to give him heck when he caves to the corporate lobby and right-wing media.

Back when Edwards was still in the race, there was an assumption being floated in the media that people like me were either racist, sexist, or both. Because, clearly you couldn't support Edwards because you liked his platform better.

::hugs you::

I've given up on the media this time round. I often would hear or read what it was reported that one of the candidates had said, then research and find out what they really said, and just...

Yeah, I've had it. Wake me up in November, 'cause nothing that Chris Matthews says between now and then is going to change how I'm going to vote.

95% of the "liberal" media is owned by the same people who own bushco. This is not stupidity; it is calculated propaganda.

God, every time I see another piece of political spin get thrown out into the world, I get a little bit more misanthropic. Case in point, a basic line graph of the increase in the price of gas, labeled with events and policies of the current congress (i.e. "2006 election day" or "Democratic Energy bill goes into effect") along the line. With absolutely no reference whatsoever to all the many, many other factors that could be, have been shown to be, and in fact, are contributing far more greatly to the price of gas than an attempt to find an alternative energy source before the entire American economy falls apart. And that's just what we've gotten from Congress (mostly the Republicans) today.

I look at this stuff, and I honestly wonder how any educated person, even one who benefited only from our less than stellar public school system, can just accept stuff like that at face value. And then I realize that people do, including people I work with and generally respect, be it through mental laziness or simple obliviousness, and I really, really, really just wanna hate people.

Fortunately, then I look over my flist and see other people pointing out these flaws, too, and I feel ever so slightly better. So, thanks!

*hugs you*

I can imaging that the whole "drill-drill-drill off shore, gently pump the crude" (sung to Row-Row-Row-Your-Boat) must be driving you absolutely buggy right now.

I don't claim to be at all overly familiar with the causes of the fuel spike, but even I know (commonsense-wise) that there are a whole lot of factors involved in spike in fuel prices, more than half of which are completely out of our control.

I mean, do you plan to tell China and India to stop using "our" oil? Or oil speculators from making good on their investments? Because that's the market at work, folks. (I know there's a lot more involved and that it's a complicated interlocking of events that is responsible, but if anyone actually thinks that a congressional "energy bill" is actually responsible for everything hasn't been paying all that much attention.)

Either way, I at least know that drilling ain't gonna do shit. And it sure as hell is not going to bring gasoline back down to $2 a gallon. Not in the short term, not in the long term.

I, uhm, have been hating people, too, today.

In any case, there's just no way anyone can be an expert at everything. However, I find that a little judicious use of common sense generally helps sift through more than half the crap.

(I know there's a lot more involved and that it's a complicated interlocking of events that is responsible, but if anyone actually thinks that a congressional "energy bill" is actually responsible for everything hasn't been paying all that much attention.)

Precisely my point. And don't get me started on the testimony about the US actually having domestic access to enough oil to keep us driving for "60 years", but (to paraphrase) "the evil, evil democrats want to keep it from the American people" -- the one that even actually points out that all this magical oil is in protected areas or international waters, you know, the places that we have a really good reason for not wanting to drill in -- okay, so I got myself started on that one. But even if drilling could stave off the oil crisis the way that person claimed, we're just going to be facing the same issue again in 60 years, only worse. What's wrong with planning ahead a little bit? You know, past the "summer travel season" or what-have-you (*rolls eyes at Hillary and McKain*)

In any case, there's just no way anyone can be an expert at everything. However, I find that a little judicious use of common sense generally helps sift through more than half the crap.

Or even just acknowledging that political commentary always has a spin -- no matter who it's coming from -- and that maybe you should ask some questions. But, then, I always seem to be expecting people to actually think. And constantly surprised and disappointed when they don't.

The problem is, most people believe something they heard somewhere, source forgotten, usually original source unknown. Things get passed around the Internet and who knows where they actually came from. I get 10 bits of spam a day from well meaning relatives trying to tell me "what's really going on" out there. Once a bit of datum gets lodged in the brain it's very hard to dislodge it. All one can do is what you have done. Present actual facts and hope it sticks.

Considering the fact that the Democrat party would pretty much have to do a 180 to get this woman to vote for any of their candidates whatsoever...

Yeah, I don't know whether to snort with laughter or just be very very offended. I think pointing and laughing at Chris Matthews is the sensible solution. HA HA NUMPTY.

Identity politics for the lose.

There are days when I wish I could write a virus that would make snopes.com the homepage for everyone who ventures on the internets.

BWAH!

The only trouble is it wouldn't help - people believe what they want to believe even when the facts are staring them in the face.

I'm with Carroll (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/18/DDBV11AREB.DTL&feed=rss.jcarroll). I hate this BS. I'm not even American, but somehow I can't avoid the American media.

This is classic Rove shit-smearing--pardon the crude language, but I like to be accurate.

The good thing is -- the bastards are running scared.

The bad thing -- there are a lot of very stupid, ignorant people out there, who do not want to inform themselves of the truth because the lies reinforce their prejudices.

I think they should change the name of the song... it should be "God Help America."

Well f'kin said. People can be so eager to form the mob against something that *looks* bad before giving it a proper think through. I'm british, but go Barak!

Oh yeah, what about 'terrorist fist jab'? WTF????

Wow, this is the first I've heard of this.

Here's what really gets me, beyond the stupidity of misdirecting anger that should go to Chris Matthews. Suppose for a moment that I am planning on voting for Obama (actually, that is true). Now suppose that it's true - the DNC releases an official "low-hanging fruit" statement. Should I be angry? Yes.

Should I vote for the candidate who disagrees with all my views, intentionally trying to give power to people who I believe will trample my rights and reduce my quality of life? Or refuse to vote and help him to power?

"Yeah, I'll show you by making sure that I don't have any input!!!"

It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. This is what killed me about all the assuming that women would vote McCain if Clinton didn't get the nomination. WHY would you vote for a republican over Obama, whose positions are nearly identical to your candidate? WHY?!? It doesn't make any sense at all!

Yeah, well, when Roe v. Wade is overturned, I will have made my point in showing Chris Matthews that no, even though I am pro-choice, I am not "easy pickings." Ha ha, I will destroy my right to choose to show him!

*facepalm* to infinity

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

About that "women are low-hanging fruit" crack...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject