Who is the Establishment?

I hear the word all the time. Now I want to know who specifically is being referred to.

This may be helpful to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_%28linguistic%29

Can you tell me which of the inherent ambiguities in language are complicating your question?

There are a number of ways to evaluate the essential characteristics which go into making one a key member of "the establishment."

There are even a number of ways to define "the establishment" since, according to one's criteria, one can consider different kinds of establishment.

Here is just one of the examples. The reasons behind the 78 chosen people's inclusion are explained at the site.

http://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/list/

( an annual compilation)

You could have looked this up for yourself. You could also have indicated what _you_ mean by the term.

for politician purposes--if you've been in Washington for a while and you're easily linkable to Wall St. banks and to multinational corporations and lobbying groups throwing around shitloads of $'s then you're pretty much part of the political establishment.

>2 Settings: I'm referring to the use of the word "establishment" in the context of the Republican primary, as in "The Establishment" doesn't want Trump to win. I would like names.

It always amuses me every election when every candidate claims to be an outsider against the Establishment when they run for office, because if they win they then become part of the Establishment. Trump's not really an outsider to government. None of them are, except maybe for Dr. Carson. They all have some connection to government. They're not outsiders in the sense that word is usually applied to you and me.

I don't know of a practical way "the Establishment" could've stopped Trump from running for office as a Republican, though he used to be a liberal Democrat. I don't know what the procedure is, but so long as you follow it you can run for office. I'm not aware of any power the party president has to stop Trump. Anyone can contribute to any campaign. They can give money, produce commercials, write editorials. Sometimes these people form groups of like-minded individuals. So?

There's always been something very wrong with American distrust of anyone or anything that is "established." Part of it is jealousy, of course. People who are established are usually people who are older, sometimes wiser, sometimes wealthier, people who have settled and taken root, who have good jobs, make good money, have spouses and children and happy lives. No wonder they are hated!

People who have longer experience in politics tend to distrust Trump. Instead of being given the benefit of the doubt, they are reviled as "the Establishment." And everyone nods as though it were a given that the Establishment is bad.

Let me come out and say it: No one is trying to keep you down. You or anyone else. Everyone is free to some degree. Your life is your own. There are no boogeyman controlling you. There are no secret rooms filled with men who act as puppeteers for the country.

No one is being forced to vote for or against Trump. No one is being forced to vote at all.

C.Wright Mills THE POWER ELITE: it's old but still pertains. It will tell you precisely who the establishment are.

>5 barney67: I'm referring to the use of the word "establishment" in the context of the Republican primary, as in "The Establishment" doesn't want Trump to win. I would like names.

Reince Priebus. Paul Ryan. Mitch McConnell. Bill Haslam. It's funny how those names took me about two minutes to find; may I suggest Wikipedia in the future?

There's always been something very wrong with American distrust of anyone or anything that is "established."

It's always dangerous to go between an established phrase and forms linguistically connected. Something that is "established" is not necessarily part of "The Establishment".

People who are established are usually ...

White, male, started as upper class or at least upper middle, and under the impression that none of that mattered at all, that what they did was all their own work. They tend to be lucky as well; in the right place, at the right time. They support each other and tend to be distant to the concerns and requests of people outside their group. People who are established rarely want things to change, though (self-made as they believe themselves to be) they tend to want less taxes on themselves (who earned their money, damn it) and less support for people who aren't like them. Otherwise, they don't want change; it worked well for them, why fix it?

Everyone is free to some degree. Your life is your own.

Yep. Exactly what people are complaining about with the establishment. As Romney said, if you don't want to go to college, get a $40,000 loan from your father to start your own business, just like my friend's son did.

There are no secret rooms filled with men who act as puppeteers for the country.

Good job torching the strawman and ignoring the disproportionate power the members of the Establishment hold.

One person's Establishment is another person's freedom fighters.

>1 barney67: barney67:

Re politics in America (the U.S.A.) -

In the modern republican party the establishment would be those influential pundits, elected officials, the RNC and many big donors who constitute the "anyone but Trump or Cruz" camp.

In the modern democratic party the establishment would be those influential pundits, elected officials, the DNC and many big donors who are the in the tank for Hillary and who are thereby radically opposed to Bernie.

It's fairly simple. Politics is not rocket science or brain surgery. The establishment is the "powers that be" who always wish to keep things as they are - no rocking the boat.

The establishment is elitist in the bad sense of the word. The establishment think voters - the little people - are mostly dumb-assess who can be fooled into voting the way the establishment wishes them too. And it seems they tend to be correct about that most of the time.

>1 barney67:

As an example of the establishment may I present $Hillary's best buddy, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, another true piece of shit:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/03/01/3755213/wasserman-schultz-payday-loa...

>7 prosfilaes: "White, male, started as upper class..."
This whole paragraph isn't analysis, it's anger and jealousy. It's also wrong. So I gnored the rest of that intemperate post. When you want to stick to the facts, let me know.

>5 barney67: Anyone can contribute to any campaign. They can give money

Almost anyone can give a few dollars. Only a limited few can give millions and millions. They have a disproportionate influence.

People who are established... have... happy lives

I wonder?

Everyone is free to some degree

With the emphasis on "to some degree". When the playing field is not level, the degree of freedom is reduced. When there is institutional racism, sexism or other -isms, the degree of freedom is reduced. When a privileged class protects its own interests (cf >7 prosfilaes:), the degree of freedom of the non-privileged classes is reduced.

>5 barney67:

You sound like a person who is trying to convince himself of something that he doesn't really believe--something that he knows is false. No wonder you don't go and look up the facts and read them for yourself.

>12 John5918: You're taking a page from the Marxist playbook. You know I don't believe any of that garbage.

Edited: mistyped.

>14 barney67:

Well, I fail to see how anything I have written there is Marxist, and I'm not sure what you mean by "playbook".

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who gives five dollars to a political campaign has as much influence as someone who gives millions?

There have been a number of press reports recently of billionaires claiming to be very unhappy with their lives, reports showing what a mess some of them have gotten into, and also about rich US youth claiming that "affluenza" is turning them into criminals. Hence my question: I wonder if they are happy?

The British class system, the Indian caste system, the South African apartheid Bantu education system... are you seriously suggesting that the lack of a level playing field, aka the institutional restriction of opportunities for particular classes of people, does not impose different degrees of freedom on people?

Often I hear someone complaing about "The Establishment" v. "The People". I've always considered it a false dichotomy, particularly in this context. The former, I am told, don't want Trump elected, but the latter do.

Obviously this is wrong. Not all People are voting for Trump, not even a majority. Candidates running against Trump have also received votes and delegates. If you were to combine them, they would outnumber Trump. Although we don't really know how Kasich voters would vote if Kasich were to drop out, I'm willing to guess that more Republican voters are against Trump than for him. In that case, the people and the establishment agree.

If by establishment you mean current members of Congress, it would seem that most of them don't support Trump. So? I don't know why this is considered scandalous or sensational or even surprising. It seems possible to me that, to put it in the vernacular, they aren't thinking "Oh, no, Trump will ruin our secret plans! He will take our power and money!" so much as they're thinking, "This guy's a douche-bag who knows nothing about how government works." Which, to me, is the truth. A congressman ought to be able to speak the truth without being accused of harboring conspiratorial self-interest.

It's possible that these established members of Congress know what they're talking about, and it has nothing to do with Us v. Him.

The establishment is us. We vote for representatives. No one forces us.

15> John, I appreciate your knowledge and experience in the rest of the world and your sincere desire to help the poor. But surely you know that when you talk about class, you're echoing Marx. A lot of people don't mind that.

I also want to add that class as it exists in Africa or India or even England isn't like America, which from the beginning actually had pseudo-Marxist ambitions for a democratic, classless society where all men are created equal. The divisions between groups are not nearly so rigid here as they are in other countries. Surely you know this. Again, the problem of your attempt to apply world problems to America.

>17 barney67:

"The divisions between groups are not nearly so rigid here as they are in other countries."

When did you last have one or more multi-millionaires as your dinner-guests at your home? Same question but for billionaires and multi-billionaires?

Well, then, could you in fact invite one to dinner--phone him or her and propose dinner on a date of his or her convenience?

If not, why not? Don't you _like_ million/billion-aires?

>17 barney67:

The evidence suggests America has less class mobility than England, Canada, and several other studied Western European countries, not more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-run...

>17 barney67: The divisions between groups are not nearly so rigid here as they are in other countries

Well, it seems to me (and many of my US friends and colleagues) that divisions in the USA are getting more rigid, and that polarisation is increasing.

The examples I gave were of institutional advantage / disadvantage. Of course there are different examples in different countries, but it was simply an attempt to point to dynamics which exist in some form or other in most countries. You appear to deny that they exist in the USA. In several parallel threads you appear to deny that race and gender advantage / disadvantage exist in the USA, so I didn't even bother mentioning those. As >18 proximity1: points out, wealth imbalance is a major factor in the USA.

I think your knowledge of Britain is limited if you assert that we thought of class in Marxist terms.

I'm not sure what is wrong with learning from Marx anyway.

>16 barney67: The former, I am told, don't want Trump elected, but the latter do.

Obviously this is wrong. Not all People are voting for Trump, not even a majority.

Since it's obvious, you've obviously set up a strawman. Not all people are voting for Trump, but a plurality, enough that he will be the candidate with the most delegates at the Republican Convention and has a shot at having the majority of them. Rubio is solidly behind Cruz. On the other hand, look at 538's Endorsement tracker: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/ They've weighed the endorsements, but it looks the same whether or not you pay attention to that: among Republican Congressmen, Representatives and Governors, Rubio has more endorsements than every other candidate combined, with Trump coming in dead last. There is a huge difference between the preferences of the Establishment and the preferences of the Republican primary voter.

The establishment is us. We vote for representatives.

We vote for representatives that have the budget to advertise to us, budget funded by people with money. Congress is 80% white (non-Hispanic) and 80% male, whereas the population is 63% white (non-Hispanic) and 49% male. The Establishment looks quite different from us.

>22 prosfilaes: There is a huge difference between the preferences of the Establishment and the preferences of the Republican primary voter.
You don't know that because you don't know how primary voters would vote if it were only a two-man race. And if your opinion were true, so what? I don't see why you necessarily have to conclude something conspiratorial or us v. them.

I for one think that too many people vote already. I want to see some kind of standards required for voting, some kind of test even, something other than "it's a God-given right" simply because a person happens to be alive. Maybe we shouldn't even have direct elections. In the past, senators were not elected by the public.

among Republican Congressmen, Representatives and Governors, Rubio has more endorsements than every other candidate combined, with Trump coming in dead last

So? I'm glad to hear it. I know people who won't for him. I've read people who won't for him. The two leading conservative magazines have not endorsed Trump. So?

>22 prosfilaes: I wish you would read my other threads, then I wouldn't have to waste time repeating myself.

We vote for representatives that have the budget to advertise to us
Jeb Bush had more money behind him than Ben Carson, but Carson did better. Ross Perot had a ton of money, but he didn't win.

It's not as though Americans are forced to vote for the candidate with the most money, the most commercials, the most air time. They can diligently find other candidates, other parties. They can work at the local level and become involved in who becomes a candidate. You're saying that there's no freedom at all left. I'm saying that there is, but it's difficult to use properly. It takes effort, perhaps a degree of effort Americans are unwilling to spend. That's they're fault. We get the country we deserve. Do you live in America? Why are there so many foreigners telling Americans how to run their lives?

I have addressed these subjects in other threads: campaign money, who endorsed whom, who received the most money in endorsements, what the delegate count means, what a brokered convention is, and of course, the subject liberals want to talk about every day forever, racism.

Congress is 80% white (non-Hispanic) and 80% male, whereas the population is 63% white (non-Hispanic) and 49% male
So? What numbers would satisfy you? Upon what would make your judgment? Are you going to pick a number arbitrarily? Is fair that the NBA is overwhelmingly black?

The recent World Almanac goes only up to 2010 for population. The numbers are from the US Census. In 2010, blacks represented 12.6% of the US population. Does that mean they should have 12.6% black members in Congress? And why? Why should only blacks speak for blacks, only whites speak for whites, only women speak for women, only wealthy speak for wealthy, only poor speak for poor. It could be construed as racism for a black man to say that only another black man can represent him in Congress.

This is an assumption that deserves at least careful scrutiny.

>22 prosfilaes: We vote for representatives that have the budget to advertise to us, budget funded by people with money.

And the same is true of presidents. You vote for presidents who have a lot of money, otherwise there is no chance of them standing for president in the first place.

>23 barney67: I for one think that too many people vote already. I want to see some kind of standards required for voting, some kind of test even

Well, I know you don't like other countries' examples, but it's been tried. In South Africa there was a simple standard - you had to pass the test of being white in order to vote. I believe that up until around the time of the US Civil War you had the same standard, and that even those who passed the test of being white also had to pass the additional test of owning property in order to vote. Up to about a hundred years ago in the UK and USA there was another simple standard - you had to pass the test of being male in order to vote.

In Northern Ireland until the time of the Troubles, "Voting arrangements which gave commercial companies multiple votes according to size, and which restricted the personal franchise to property owners, primary tenants and their spouses... continued... until 1969" (Wikipedia). Since the establishment at the time was Protestant and Unionist, and since it intentionally and explicitly made it difficult for Catholics and Republicans, it effectively set a standard which gave one group more electoral power than others.

On the other hand, in Australia, voting is compulsory for everyone.

>25 John5918:

(I appreciate your participation here!)

RE

"I believe that up until around the time of the US Civil War you had the same standard, ..."

True.

"...and that even those who passed the test of being white also had to pass the additional test of owning property in order to vote."

Perhaps in _some_ of the just-founded states under the Confederation of the former British colonies of North America (i. e. "The Articles of Confederation") but when what became the Constitution of the United States was being debated and drafted, such a requirement was proposed, argued over and finally rejected. The original Constitution expressly forbids any such property requirements for voting. Note, too, that in general, the legal practicalities of voting are the province of the individual state governments, not the the federal government. However, historically, the U.S. courts and their police authorities can and sometimes do intervene to enforce voting rights where states have a bad record of violating them.

>24 barney67: We vote for representatives that have the budget to advertise to us

Jeb Bush had more money behind him than Ben Carson, but Carson did better. Ross Perot had a ton of money, but he didn't win.

And? None of those facts disprove the claim I made.

You're saying that there's no freedom at all left.

Another strawman version, this time where you didn't even bother to quote what I said.

Why should only blacks speak for blacks, only whites speak for whites, only women speak for women, only wealthy speak for wealthy, only poor speak for poor. It could be construed as racism for a black man to say that only another black man can represent him in Congress.

As a general rule of thumb, if you're speaking for people and they're asking you to shut up, you're speaking over them and not for them.

Though given that race and gender don't matter in such situations, surely we'd find as many situations where women and minorities are acting as mouthpieces for the white male as otherwise, no?

>28 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

..." surely we'd find as many situations where women and minorities are acting as mouthpieces for the white male as otherwise, no?"

As, indeed, we find to be the case as often --and even more often than not.

I don't know where you are looking, but I'll take some of what you're smoking.

>30 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Overwhelmingly consistent Severs of wealth and power (right after their own selfish promotion), rather than princilple (or even so-called "race," or gender or ethnic "interests" )

Many of these, of course, were appointed to office at one or another point in their careers,--itself ringing evidence of their having sought and made themselves "fit for" service to the same powerful and wealthy intersts which appointed them--in the full knowledge that they should be and remain faithful servants of that same:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Day_O%27Connor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Lagarde
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Todd_Whitman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cisneros

Rather than go on listing them, why don't you bring us examples of women or people of minority ethnicity whov'e been consistenly clear examples of your claim? (*) I am hard-pressed to think of any.

* NOTE: THIS QUESTION REMAINS IGNORED (until further notice here)

I think it's you who are high on some mind-altering substance.

I'm surprised you didn't list the FOURTH female Supreme Court justice, too. Throughout the entirety of the court's history, there haven't been enough females to constitute a majority of 5.

So no, it's not what we find more often than not.

Very far from it.

>32 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Again:

REREAD your own words:

"... as many situations where women and minorities ( note: i.e. who are in power) acting as mouthpieces for the white male as otherwise, no?"

(emphasis added)

...why don't you bring us examples of women or people of minority ethnicity whov'e been consistenly clear examples of your claim? I am hard-pressed to think of any,...

Where is it written that we're required to remain in some arbitrary compartmentalization-- toting up relative numbers of women or of ethnic minorities? -- when the point was not that more often than not they are either elected or appointed but, rather, that once in place, they prove as often or _more_ often than not to serve power and wealth rather than some contrived abstract idea of "women's interests" or those if their "race" or ethnicity.

I've asked: where are your counter-examples ?

Check out the BlackLivesMatter protests.

Hell, there's a whole group on LT devoted to women discussing why they feel feminism is necessary.

As to relative proportions, if you don't find the exclusion of people from discussions of their own lives problematic, you may be part of the problem.

And your statement that overrepresentation of minority groups and women relative to their proportion of the population is what one finds "more often than not" is baldly false on its face.

>34 Jesse_wiedinmyer: & >35 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

No sir: you're not getting away with this.

In reference to _this_ :

"Why should only blacks speak for blacks, only whites speak for whites, only women speak for women, only wealthy speak for wealthy, only poor speak for poor. It could be construed as racism for a black man to say that only another black man can represent him in Congress."

you replied,

..."Though given (I.e. hypothetically) that race and gender don't matter in such situations, (then) surely we'd find as many situations where women and minorities are acting as mouthpieces for the white male as otherwise , (i.e. but we do not find that ) no?"

To which I'd replied:

"As, indeed, we find to be the case as often --and even more often than not."

Again: where are your counter-examples?

NOTE: THIS QUESTION REMAINS IGNORED (until further notice here)

This whole discussion, of course, being one more example of the entitlement of "speaking for" other people, rather than listening to what they have to say.

Counterexample?

Congress.

The historical make up of the Supreme Court.

The history of those who have held the office of the presidency.

None of these things validate your point, in the slightest..

It is rather simple math.

Or to rephrase, which part of "as many" are you having a problem with?

>39 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

..."which part of "as many" are you having a problem with?"

I have made that abundantly clear in my post >36 proximity1: (as revised) which you're stubbornly trying to ignore.

I recommend that you re-read it.

I have read it.

You are making a factually incorrect assertion.

If we found the situation you describe, there would be "as many" instances of female senators as male.

There would be "as many" female Supreme Court justices as male.

Neither of these situations remotely achieve parity, let alone being true "more often than not."

Mayhap you should re-read the exchange, then re-math your numbers.

>39 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

It was never Barney67's point @ >24 barney67: that there are in fact equal or even nearly equal numbers of women or ethnic minority members in places of elected or appointed office. Rather, as he made clear, he questions the basis for the implied assumption that,

...only blacks speak for blacks, only whites speak for whites, only women speak for women, only wealthy speak for wealthy, only poor speak for poor. ...

Thus, the relatively fewer numbers of (some of) these are beside the point of his observations-- which you ignore, I guess because you concede his point, so, rather than admit that, you try to change the argument.

I have. Multiple times.

No matter how many times it is repeated, it becomes no more true.

>41 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

"If we found the situation you describe, there would be "as many" instances of female senators as male.

"There would be "as many" female Supreme Court justices as male."

Faux! Archi - faux!

You are not going to get away with this!

Read >42 proximity1:!

No, #42 doesn't make the point that you think it does.

Quite simply, the fact that white males feel that anyone can speak for anyone would be borne out mathematically by situations where white males were underrepresented with respect to their proportion of society.

That this does not happen (nearly ever) is very indicative of the fact that white males are the only group that is frequently accorded the privilege of speaking for others.

Edited to add - one would achieve more "speaking for others" parity by throwing darts at a dartboard.

We, very simply, do not have "as many" women speaking for men as otherwise.

If I understand the current composition of the house of representatives properly, we don't even have "as many" instances of not-"white males" as there are of white males.

>45 Jesse_wiedinmyer: white males are the only group that is frequently accorded the privilege of speaking for others

I think this would be the salient point. Nobody else really needs to speak up for the needs and experiences of white males, at least in the western world.

One might plausibly argue that the current Supreme Court's composition has "as many" nob-whitemale justices (obeying the letter of what's been said, if not the spirit, because it's surely white males against the world)...

...But that's only because one of the white males died.

>45 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

RE : "Quite simply, the fact that white males feel that anyone can speak for anyone would be borne out mathematically by situations where white males were underrepresented with respect to their proportion of society."

This is to beg the question in >24 barney67: -- though I'm almost certain you won't understand why that is so. And I'm disinclined to explain it to you since you show severe reading comprehension problems.

Strangely, both you and John accept uncritically the assumption that men and women really are unfit to speak for their counterparts as well as they are able to speak for "their own kind"--as you so obviously see it. You also accept as a corollary that each gender _does_ adequately "speak for" his or her "own." I'm rather surprised that this doesn't strike you as being as sexistly bigoted as it is false.

>47 John5918:

John, you're a guy: am I to suppose that, on that account alone, given that Parliament (or, in Jesse's case (that is, _if_Jesse is a man) the U.S. Congress) ) has always been so overwhelmingly male, you've always felt quite well represented?--indeed, I have to suppose you'd have _often_ said to yourself in this regard, "Thank goodness I'm a man! "

Did you often say that regarding your representatives!?

I _never_ have. Not in Britain and not in the U.S.

>45 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

"Quite simply, the fact that white males feel that anyone can speak for anyone would be borne out mathematically by situations where white males were underrepresented with respect to their proportion of society."

Tell me--honestly, if you can--
have you complained that in the book-publishing and bookselling trade you've felt un- or underrepresented? Women have been predominant in the management of both of these nationally for decades.

How about child-care? Elementary and Early-childhood education? Are office secretaries' organized statements leaving you feeling like they don't speak just as well for your own opinions? Do the pronouncements of the nursing professionals leave your views out of account?

Have you ever really felt that just because you're not a woman, this, that or another woman has greatly Imposed on your patience by either not speaking as well for your views or, on the contrary, presuming too much to speak for them?

Is it one? The other? Both at once?
NOTE: These Questions Remain IGNORED (until further notice here)

Yet there are plenty of women and minorities who have said quite the opposite. In point of fact, the franchise was denied to women and blacks both in the US (I would wonder why, but we already know that white men can speak for everyone). Blacks and women both have fought for the right to speak for themselves (presumably because they felt white men were doing a shit job of it. Maybe they just liked the sound of "no taxation without representation.")

As noted in my comment that started the exchange, if you're (2nd person plural, of course) speaking for someone that wishes you not to speak for them, that points less to your ability as a human to speak for others and more to the fact that you're a narcissistic, self-absorbed twit that presumes you know better than others what they wish to say.

I suppose I could speak for Lola or Southernbooklady, but I'm rather more interested in what they have to say. That's why I'm essentially a lurking, non-posting member of the feminism group on LT.

>50 proximity1:
"In point of fact, the franchise was denied to women and blacks both in the US (I would wonder why, but we already know that white men can speak for everyone)."

Until--as I'm sure Barney67 would point out--white men--mainly _old_ white men-- wrote laws and judicial rulings which changed that set of circumstances. Now, in making that observation, I imply _no_ particular virtue in white men, old men or old white men. Just as I'd imply none in women--of whatever age or skin-color.

>23 barney67: "I for one think that too many people vote already. I want to see some kind of standards required for voting, some kind of test even, something other than "it's a God-given right" simply because a person happens to be alive."

I'm surprised to see you write this. What you've proposed is unconstitutional.

>53 proximity1:

Not without, quite literally, a fight did they do that...

But again, you are proving my point with the implicit idea that women and blacks are only granted the franchise because old white men finally decided to quit denying them the franchise.

My grandfather was extremely racist, being a product and normality for his time.

He very frequently would bemoan the fact that blacks weren't satisfied with their lot in America. "We gave them the right to vote," he would say, "what more do they want?"

Which sort of missed the point entirely... "We" didn't give them the franchise. We stopped withholding it from them.

>50 proximity1:

"Blacks and women both have fought for the right to speak for themselves (presumably because they felt white men were doing a shit job of it."

And, throughout, these Blacks not only included men as well as women--Black, as well as White--the Women, too, fighting for their rights _as_ women _and_ as Black women, had men-- Black and White men--fighting on their side --as well as others fighting against them--that is, against both the women _and_ their male confederates. People divided according to their _beliefs_ irrespective of either their "race" or their sex! What a concept!

Good grief! This is tiresome!

I'm surprised to see you write this. What you've proposed is unconstitutional.

It also ignores the blatantly racist history of voting tests. Anyone who supports voting tests is implicitly supporting racism.

>54 theoria: >57 StormRaven:

Mayhap there could be some sort of historical literacy quiz, with questions like "What percentage of the black population were slaves immediately prior to the civil war?" Anyone that messed up badly enough would be denied the franchise.

>54 theoria: >57 StormRaven:

Though maybe better questions would be about how racism tainted the suffrage movement.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/25/134849480/the-root-how-racism-tainted-womens-suffr...

You know what the "big advance" has been?--the great distinction which separates our times from those of the major civil rights struggles of the 19th century?

It's this: unlike then, today, some women won't have men "meddling" in their liberation efforts and some Blacks--though fewer, I believe--won't have Whites "meddling" in theirs since, you see, we've grown so much in sophistication since then. Now we "know" what those poor ignorant slobs couldn't understand: a man can't speak for, or feel the circumstances of a woman just as Blacks and Whites are similarly dwelling in two worlds which irrevocably render them strangers to each other's humanity.

How far we've come!

IF I WERE a woman, I'd be unutterably offended by what I see today as the leading feminists presuming to speak for me and advance my interests so clumsily and with so much ignorance and so little insight. My prime example: Jessica Valenti at The Guardian. Surely many women must find her disgusting.

And yet, you're not... And they don't.

>62 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Thank you for making my points for me. See what you did there?

You contradicted your claimed position: you presumed to speak for "women"! How else are we to read "And they don't"?

I gather that "they" refers to women and that "don't" refers to

"don't take offence."

So you've apparently spoken for all women and mansplained --to another _man_! LOL! Feminists take note! Surely this is a "first"!--to me that there are simply no women anywhere who do or could find offensive what I, a mere man, imagining myself in their places ( presumably the very thing they'd wish we could do), find offensive.

Nicely done!
-------
PS.

On the positive side of your ledger there's this:

Your tripping up there reveals that your actual real-world working assumptions, as opposed to the absurd ideological box in which your stated views suggest you would like others to believe you keep yourself, are saner and much more respectable intellectually.

There is nothing really surprising in that. The standard contemporary feminist dogmas so far as I've seen them are so ridiculously absurd that it's nearly a given that they are maintained only when their adherents are working with concentrated effort at keeping up the pretense.

No, I've listened to women and relayed a message.

Which is entirely different than "speaking for".

One is a statement of fact, the other is an expression of opinion.

>63 proximity1:

Oh God! Help me! You're a _relay_ man! and nothing more. Sweet Jesus! LOL!

Hear that, you liberated women? He's merely relaying what you've authorized him to state. This does _not_, I repeat, _not_ mean that you women aren't quite capable of doing your own talking and "relaying."

>64 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Well of course! Of course! Look here! It's understood my dear fellow!

Women are quite capable of doing their own talking.

Maybe you need to shut up and listen for once.

Or just keep assuming you can talk for everyone.

All 2nd person plural, of course.

I don't do "relay"-- unless I badly slip up. I speak only for myself ( on any ordinary day).

Just to be quite clear: as I understand you, it's your seriously held view that--as you've relayed it from them--there are _no_ women at all anywhere who actually fit what I described as my sense (both as a man and as I imagine I'd feel if I were a woman) of shame at and disgust for much of contemporary feminism?

Do I have that right?

(This is the part where I listen).

NOTE: THIS QUESTION REMAINS IGNORED (until further notice here)

Horse shit.

You've just spent the better part of a day telling everyone hour you're entitled to speak for everyone.

_am_I_missing_something_?

>49 proximity1: Strangely, both you and John accept uncritically the assumption that men and women really are unfit to speak for their counterparts as well as they are able to speak for "their own kind"

Not uncritically, no. But it mght be good to ask groups such as women and non-whites whether they are comfortable having solely white males speaking for them. Experience would suggest that they aren't.

Note it doesn't mean that no single individual can empathise with the experience of another group, but it does mean that if one group is dominant and no other group has significant representation then voices are missing from the conversation and the end result is not as full, fair or fruitful as if they were included.

I think there may be enough blame to go around for everyone.

The radical and extreme emphasis on white men (rich older heterosexual white men) being bad actors is getting old, and not just for them.

Some men are bad actors. Some women are bad actors. Ditto white, black and brown, ditto gay, straight and bi. Etc., etc.

There is privilege going on, of course, ditto unwarranted discrimination. And anything that can be done - legally - to ameliorate the situation should be done. Granted.

But when societal problems get addressed in some serious way there is always a certain amount of the "pendulum swinging too far the other way" activity. Some people WILL focus on that to the exclusion of the original and much worse problem. And thus is engendered another problem to be addressed.

We would all be well advised to walk carefully and not generalize and stereotype too much, or get too carried away and provide ammunition to the enemy - which is what many professional feminists do. Just check out youtube sometimes under the rubric "feminism". You will see some really disturbing videos. Once some people see such then you will never get them to see the light as you see it. Feminism will be forever seen as a very bad thing. The excesses - and there are many - will be used to beat all you good feminists (male or female) over the head and you will never make the headway you would wish.

Spend some time reigning in the nutters and your positive program will have a better chance of being successful, long-term.

>74 John5918:

Typical of your good sense.

Today, unlike in 1816 or 1916, while it's possible to dispute the sufficiency, the adequacy of their participation--here I refer to Britain's and the United States' circumstances--in the political life of their country for both Blacks and women of most "hues" (though this is probably unequal among these), it is not possible to dispute the basic fact itself of that participation when one compares ethnicities and gender with their white male class counterparts. Thus, wealthy women and ethnic minorities are relatively better able to influence the political processes than and old white man such as I am. And middle and upper-middle class Blacks and ethnic minority members compare very well in what it is possible for them to do politically with their White class-peers.

Today, as we debate, it appears that an extremely conventional (in every way resembling the great majority of her male peers) woman is well-placed to succeed the no-less conventional current president of the United States and, in doing so, if that happens, she shall defeat an old white male who is beyond compare more politically oriented to the needs and interests of poor and middle-class men and women, whatever their ethnicity.

Today, a clone-like female or ethnic version of the dreary conventional British or U.S
male political figure may go anywhere, hold any elective or appointive office and say or do anything her conventional male peers may be found to do.

What they apparently _cannot_ do is offer any genuine alternative of the sort which the old white male Bernie Sanders offers.

And I'm lectured morally by such people who are pleased to call this "progress", "good enough" or "the best we can expect."

>50 proximity1: "in the book-publishing and bookselling trade you've felt un- or underrepresented? Women have been predominant in the management of both of these nationally for decades.

Maybe I shouldn't distract from the more general issue here, but this statement really surprised me. Evidence?

>77 krolik:

Publisher'sWeekly

"Where the Boys Are Not"

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article...

Then search data on women's share in bookstore ownership or management.

And, more generally

https://www.nwbc.gov/facts

When I was in school, if you took a course in English, Creative Writing, or Library Science, it was about 100 to 1 female to male.

>78 proximity1: I would like to see a more recent breakdown--that article is from 2010. I would also point out that it does not specify that the majority of managerial roles in publishing are filled by women. Editorial and production, yes--that has been my experience in the industry. But not necessarily higher up.

>80 Marissa_Doyle:

I agree with your points. I'd have liked to have had more recent data to offer. I looked for the latest available but don't mean to suggest that there isn't some that I failed to locate.

My personal experience--perhaps unlike yours-- is much more in retail bookselling than in publishing. But, over years of that, I had lots of opportunity to meet publishers' "sales reps", overwhelmingly women. Bookstore managers, with only one or two exceptions out of at least a dozen, all women. Store owners--at least 50% (of the individual shops I knew--and this was 30 to 40 years ago--owned by women.

In publishing, whenever I've initiated a contact at a publishing house--e.g. to recommend a foreign title be considered for adoption--I've always found myself dealing with a woman.

I accept that this is all anecdotal and thus suspect on that ground.

Care to offer your opinion RE the posts >71 proximity1: and >74 John5918: ? I'd be very interested to hear from you on these.

PS:

You wrote:

..."Editorial and production, yes--that has been my experience in the industry. But not necessarily higher up."

But it's in editorial and production (at the big houses --in the past) where the majority of key decisions are made.

"But it's in editorial and production (at the big houses --in the past) where the majority of key decisions are made."

No, not at all. The key decisions are made by the higher ups in Sales. At editorial meetings where decisions about what books to acquire are made, Sales has pretty much the final say. Books are no longer art or culture--they're units. Whether those higher-ups in sales are male or female, I just don't know.

My experience is as an author published with one of the "Big 5".

And re my opinion on posts >71 proximity1: and >74 John5918:...I'm completely with John.

What is an interesting corollary discussion to this one is just who all those women in publishing are. Right now, they're overwhelmingly white and upper middle class, because no one else can afford to start out in the lower levels of publishing without having the cushion of a supportive (in one way or another) background. But that's another discussion. ;)

>82 Marissa_Doyle:

http://global.penguinrandomhouse.com/management/

Eight men, eight women--unless I've miscounted.

ETA:
For the Board of Directors, "women are in deficit" : there are seven men and four women. Just replace three of those men with women and, at least in that little corner of thre world, advocates of women's (numerical) equality can feel vindicated.

http://global.penguinrandomhouse.com/management/?dep=board-of-directors

Something very deep in me is disgusted at what I've just done: having gone in search of meaningful information, I ended by toting up male vs. female numbers of the executives on the roster.

Such numerical reductiveness truly strikes me as the epitome of petty-minded pseudo-thinking.

But this is precisely what It seems to me contemporary feminism--as evidenced by my reading of feminists in the general press-- have brought us to.

And, gender justice or injustice by-the-numbers at Simon & Schuster:

about.simonandschuster.biz/leadership/

Cheer (or weep) accordingly.

I'm happy to talk about the publishing industry. I really have no interest in discussing "contemporary feminism" because I doubt we'll be able to find common ground.

>84 Marissa_Doyle:

The thread concerns "The Establishment"-- and one of the links in a logical chain of that discussion concerns the general matter of "who are capable of representing whom?" --

From there it is inevitable in the social climate of our times that this should lead directly to the fractious issues which relate to relations between the social abstractions, "men & women" --as supposedly distinct social classifications-- with the emotionally-charged corollary, 'Can "men" or "women" ever be trusted to even occasionally fairly represent the "other's" interests?'

When declining to engage in this aspect, it's not surprising you should offer a rationale for that preference, in this case, your doubts of "finding common ground." That doubt itself is part and parcel of the broader set of beliefs which, similarly, are not readily allowed to be subject to the scrutiny of dissenters: that "men" and "women" do and perhaps must face each other from opposite sides of a social chasm which inevitably divides them. When put that way, I suppose you're bound to object that this is not at all your view of it. Which of us should like to avow that view?

But I don't mean that you consciously hold it. Nor did I intend to suggest, when I said John and Jesse W hold their views uncritically, that they consciously hold uncritically the view that (from >49 proximity1:)
"men and women really are unfit to speak for their counterparts as well as they are able to speak for "their own kind"

-- to which John replied at >74 John5918:

"Not uncritically, no. But it might be good to ask groups such as women and non-whites whether they are comfortable having solely white males speaking for them.
Experience would suggest that they aren't."

By "uncritically accept" I mean that, unless and until such views are questioned by others, they're held without being subjected to much if any examination. Your reply just demonstrates your discomfort at the prospect of such examination.

John passed over without comment when and how and with what results his views on this are held "not uncritically." And ,
now, I take it, so have you.

ETA:

From adolescence to the present, I've witnessed most of the course of the feminists' critiques of society and political affairs over the past forty-five years. In that time, I have watched flexible opinions harden into unquestionable convictions. Inter-gender acrimony has now taken on a life of its own and Feminist Studies seem designed to chronicle and perpetuate the assumptions which, by implication, but rarely or never by outright avowal, form the bases of this acrimony.

There is no reason to suppose that this set of circumstances are going to auto-correct, no reason to suppose that they cannot worsen significantly if they are not allowed to be deliberately examined for their soundness.

It's now practically impossible to deal adequately with the social and economic aspects of power relations without frankly dealing with the implications of the contemporary feminist critique.

More RE >85 proximity1:

The key demands of feminists of the 1970s were, as even I could then see as an adolescent, uncontestably valid. They wanted fair entry to various kinds of employment which were long the de facto reserve of men as well as parity in pay, benefits and comparable working conditions to those of their male peers. In general, they sought the end to being relegated in so many respects to a second-class status.

What was sought and what was deemed sufficient at that time was simply to have a fair access to compete with men on a level ground for places and participation in the processes by which society's benefits were meted out in the public and in the private business realms. No one--or few few feminists then-- thought it necessary to have a seat or a set of seats preemptorily reserved to their “own.” It was rather thought that, once the opportunity was secured for women to compete on the same bases as those by which men competed among each other for such places, then women could and should find their rightful participation in the same manner--and there was no automatic expectation of (much less a demand for) any strict or even loose numerical parity resulting from this.

From initial entry and participation in the competition for a place, a role, in the formulation of policy in business and government, feminist objectives eventually moved to what we now see: a simplistic demand for numerical parity in membership—a parity deemed theirs by right and one for which they seek a legal sanction—that is, in a word, quotas. By this view, women can never expect to receive a fair shake from their male peers. Only by direct and equal participation can they hope to have their fair share of authority and all that goes with it. That now seems to be the common assumption, implicit in the observed words and deeds of feminist leaders and those who claim to speak for them.

The conviction that nothing short of strict numerical parity can ever suffice, this apparently standard benchmark of anything deemed “progress,” is something that, as I see it, borders on an outright superstition. It seems to flow logically from the assumption that men and women are so irremediably dissimilar that it is simply not possible that men could accurately envision the view and interest of women—here apparently viewed as some sort of homogenous identity. Accordingly, any one woman is by definition qualified to speak for “her gender” in just the same way that any one man is by defintion disqualified from being able to adequately appreciate—let alone speak for—women or even some women. These are newer and different assumptions from those which, in the 1970s motivated feminists.

Thus, John's ...“But it might be good to ask groups such as women and non-whites whether they are comfortable having solely white males speaking for them. Experience would suggest that they aren't." … is taken from a time we've have long since left behind in Britain and in the United States. I do not dispute that there are other places in which that concern is fully warranted since it obtains in such places. But as a description of what British or American (U.S.) women have to fear today—unless they secure for themeselve a quota of seats in the rooms where important policy is made-- this is a ridiculous picture. Women in the U.S. and in Britian have a fully-secure place in their societies' key governing bodies—private and public. No one can seriously maintain today that women may be—as was once the case—systematically excluded from access to participation as full peers simply and for no other reason than that they are women. But the views and actions of many feminists today seem to imply that this is indeed just what they (superstitiously) fear might occur unless they have strict parity enforced by law.

In both respects-- that of the demand for strict numerical parity as a minimum (indeed, now practically the only ) requirement, achieved through legally-madated quotas and that of the idea by which men and women are doomed to regard each other as mutually alien in their interests and needs—these demean and insult women as being less than fully capable of getting what they are due by competing on the same terms and conditions by which men take it for granted that they must compete and win their places.

>86 proximity1: As I was emerging into adulthood and became an adult in the 1970s perhaps I noted more about feminism that you did. Most importantly, feminism was obviously anti-establishment by definition, the establishment being patriarchal. The demand for mere equality was indeed a surface demand, the tenor of feminism being revolutionary in varying degrees. That the feminist movement did not succeed in changing the establishment in any meaningful way--though it did succeed in helping women day to day in ways that are threatened today, most obviously the success of Planned Parenthood which is now at risk--leads me to think that feminists of today are most definitely as radical as ever and I would not attempt to speak for 'them' in any specific way. And I doubt that many feminists would find you an acceptable spokesman.

>86 proximity1:

"And I doubt that many feminists would find you an acceptable spokesman."

But Rick, how could you miss my point by so much! ?

I not only make no pretense of ever "speaking for" women--whether feminist or not--my point is, moreover, I contend as my key point that they need no such "help" from me--even if I presumed to offer it!

Good grief! Despite a woefully inadequate status quo, women now have an unquestionable right to speak for themselves in their own interests as moral and political equals in fact as well as in principle. Not even Donald Trump could dispute that right of theirs.

RE:

"Most importantly, feminism was obviously anti-establishment by definition, the establishment being patriarchal. The demand for mere equality was indeed a surface demand, the tenor of feminism being revolutionary in varying degrees. That the feminist movement did not succeed in changing the establishment in any meaningful way--...--leads me to think that feminists of today are most definitely as radical as ever."

I think you saw less well then --and again less well now-- than you suppose you did--or do.

What to many--but not all--seemed to be an anti-establishment movement has in our time, with our perspective, revealed itself as having actually been merely anti-male-establishment movement.

You apparently didn't see that then and don't seem to see it now.

Okay, I didn't read any of your longer posts through, just a couple bits here and there.

>86 proximity1: They wanted fair entry to various kinds of employment which were long the de facto reserve of men as well as parity in pay, benefits and comparable working conditions to those of their male peers. In general, they sought the end to being relegated in so many respects to a second-class status.

They don't seem to have succeeded with parity of pay yet...

Look, it's not just about numbers, as you seem to imply, but about letting a voice (or an experience) be heard. As you say yourself, women were "relegated in so many respects to a second-class status". Most white males have never experienced a life of second-class status. They may well want to help women to achieve parity (ie to speak for women); many do, and many support the aspirations of women. But even the best-intentioned of them (of us) can never express it in the same way as those who have experienced that second-class status. That voice needs to be heard first hand, not second hand. It's not necessarily "that men and women are so irremediably dissimilar that it is simply not possible that men could accurately envision the view and interest of women", to quote your words again; rather it is that women have experienced second-class status that men haven't.

The same would be true of other groups which have, collectively, experienced oppression, discrimination, marginalisation, non-level playing fields. I may be able to speak on their behalf quite eloquently in theoretical terms, but if I have never experienced what they have lived through then something is missing from the conversation. Why not let them speak for themselves?

And this is not, as you suggest, claiming homogeneity within a group such as women. Of course they are all individuals, just as men are. But nevertheless the group as a whole has experienced something which white men as a whole haven't, and so people from within the group are better qualified to speak about it from personal experience than people outside the group. There may be some individuals within the group who also haven't experienced it; fine, but that doesn't negate the experience of the group as a whole, nor for us to hear the voice of experience rather than just second-hand descriptions.

>90 John5918:

...Look, it's not just about numbers, as you seem to imply,"...

I wonder. What I hear, first, last and everywhere in between is the plaint that this board, council, committee, group, slate, has more male members than female--_never_ that women were denied an equal opportunity to apply, join, compete for, etc., places on said group. With the implied and sometimes stated assertion that to fix what's amiss is simple: place an equal number of women in the group by a rule requiring this.

"But nevertheless the group (White women) as a whole has experienced something which white men as a whole haven't..."

"Most white males have never experienced a life of second-class status."

These two are indeed articles of the faith. I seriously question that they are in fact true in the way that so many appear to believe that it is a fact.

Instead, I suspect that significant numbers of men--esp. but _not_ exclusively, the poorest of us--have as much experience as women with systematic relegation to second-class status all their lives, while _some_ of the most fortunate women have practically never known such ecperience except second-hand.

I'd think your long experience in Africa would impress you with this possibility.

>91 proximity1: You're looking at this the wrong way around. No one is suggesting that there be a quota of the number of women on Congress or as CEOs, but the fact that men have historically and currently far outweighed women in those venues is indicative of a problem. If there were no power imbalance between men and women then we'd expect those numbers to be more or less even and to fall on the side of women outnumbering men around half the time.

Since the numbers show that there is an imbalance between men and women then it makes sense to try to redress it, not by some sort of strict numerical quota but by doing things like forming groups to encourage more women to run for political office.

Proximity, am I correct in thinking that you're the poster who entered the feminism group and disagreed with one of the women there about her assessment of a book you had admittedly not read?

>92 jjwilson61:

You miss his point entirely, methinks. Women have been granted access to the playing field, the game is no longer rigged. Now they just need to work like men.

I've read discussion about how, in Russia, doctoring is both a usually female job and very poorly paid job. Which goes to help prove that jobs held typically by women pay less because women do them. (I know someone is going to fuss about America and Russia, but comparing across countries shows that the same job pays differently depending on who typically does it, avoiding complaints about examples of male jobs that are compensated more producing claims that those jobs are worth more, and the solution is for more women to work them.)

November 2014, the number of women in the US Congress hit over 100 (104 out of 535) for the first time in history. The odds that only 104 members of Congress would be female by a gender-neutral process is infinitesimal. Playing with a binomial calculator, it takes 213 members of Congress to be female for there to be a one-in-a-million that it was that small. The simple fact that there is such an enormous deviation in political power tells me that there is a significant difference between the populations of men and women and thus women might want representation.

The concept of representation is central to democracy. I'm sure most of us have pondered the wonders of an enlightened dictatorship, but as Churchill said (quoting an uncited predecessor) "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Maybe someone else can represent you, but if people like you are disproportionately not among the representatives, it really does bring to question how well you're being represented.

In any case, the mere fact that Congress is massively disproportionately male shows that the political Establishment is disproportionately male. That's a fact, no matter how you might want to dodge it.

> 95

As opposed to the good old boy situations in the private sector congresspersons are elected to office by a majority of voters.

The majority of adults in the U.S. are women and thus the majority of voters are women.

If no woman runs in a particular race then the elected person will be a man. Women have to run in a majority of races for there to be any real world chance for proportional representation in congress. That's logic, right?

Thus, unless someone knows something about voter suppression specifically regarding women voters that I am not aware of then the ball seems to be in the women's end of the court and it is their shot.

I always save conspiracy as the last go-to explanation of an unusual situation. Men conspiring to prevent women from holding public office? - That seems unlikely to me. But if there are relevant facts I am not aware of then OK. And what would those facts be?

Patriarchy?

>92 jjwilson61:

..."but the fact that men have historically and currently far outweighed women in those venues is indicative of a problem. If there were no power imbalance between men and women then we'd expect those numbers to be more or less even and to fall on the side of women outnumbering men around half the time."

I think you're conflating things. I dispute the assumption that the historical imbalance remains today _either_ as valid a criticism as it was once _or_ the actual source of the current objectives which motivate the mainstream feminist movement--if there is such a thing.

I shall maintain again and again here and in other threads that women today are just as much a party to the systematic and unjustified inequalities in societies as are men. My point is that contemporary feminism constitutes a major obstacle to the reduction of wide and deep general social inequality by its blinkered obsession with gender as the locus of a longstanding conflictual situation. Rather than fostering a more equal opportunity for those most excluded--young and old, women and men : the poor, the poorly educated or the uneducated, and those without insiders' connections to opportunities. Many women in Britain and the U.S. fall completely outside of any of those categories.

There are now great numbers of women in places of power and authority in both public affairs of all kinds and in private business. But, while we continue to lavish time and resources on fine-tuning their supposed gendered interests--some of these highly questionable in their legitimacy--there are literally no examples of the poor having any remotely similar role in places of power and influence.

If, for example, Hillary Clinton, a multi-millionaire member of a political dynasty in-the-making, is elected president of the United States, we are bound to hear her talk of how her election is a barrier-breaker, and how she has made her campaign for all the marginalised and excluded. How nauseating it shall be to have to hear such hypocritical nonsense treated with the greatest and most solemn respect in the press while the poor and most needy remain completely shut out!

>98 proximity1:

Ladies and gentleman, intersectional thinking has left the building.

>98 proximity1: If, for example, Hillary Clinton, a multi-millionaire member of a political dynasty in-the-making, is elected president of the United States, we are bound to hear her talk of how her election is a barrier-breaker, and how she has made her campaign for all the marginalised and excluded. How nauseating it shall be to have to hear such hypocritical nonsense treated with ghe greatest and most solemn rsdpect in the press while the poor snd most needy remain completely shut out!

Are you not confusing the particular and the general? There have always been individuals who have managed to transcend institutional disadvantage, either because of their own outstanding personal characteristics or because they had a lot of help on the way (I won't presume to judge which one describes Hilary Clinton) - or a bit of both. Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Ellen Sirleaf Johnson, have all reached the highest office in the land, some of them in quite patriarchal societies, and if Clinton is elected it will be a milestone. But none of that negates the fact that the odds are stacked against the majority of their sisters. The fact that Barack Obama was elected president in the USA is indeed a milestone, but of itself it does not level the playing field which slopes against most of the African American and other non-white communities.

>100 John5918:

"Are you not confusing the particular and the general?"

I don't think so.

"There have always been individuals who have managed to transcend institutional disadvantage, either because of their own outstanding personal characteristics or because they had a lot of help on the way (I won't presume to judge which one describes Hilary Clinton) - or a bit of both."

True. There have. However my point, two-fold in character, is that Barack Obama's election broke a barrier and did indeed make the field somewhat more level in one very particular area: before his election, no Black Columbia University & Harvard L.S. graduate had ever been president of the United States. Now, one has. And all the poor Black Columbia University grads attending Harvard Law can confidently project themselves into such a prospect--provided they are as conventionally-minded and as ready to serve without presenting any danger of ruffling wealth and power's beautiful feathers. Their way is now clearly--demonstrably (and it is in just this that we have the "milestone" feature)--open to the presidency of the United States.

But, almost as you put it,

"...of itself it does not level the playing field which slopes against most of the African American and other non-white communities."

Not only does it do nothing for these African Americans or other non-white communities, it also does exactly the same--nothing--for any currently-poor man or woman of any race or ethnicity --or their children.

And exactly the same can be said after Hillary Clinton leaves the White House as a former president of the United States.

> '...there are literally no examples of the poor having any remotely similar role in places of power and influence.' They wouldn't be poor then, would they?

>102 RickHarsch:

Bizarre question. With no experience to go on, how can we know or say?

Legally, they are eligible to run for office. Practically, we know that this formal eligibility is useless-- to them and to us--so far.

Until substantial numbers of people (voters ) can manage the imaginative challenge of seriously considering a poor person's candidacy, such people remain as fully shut out as women once were. And until then we cannot answer your question with other than conjecture.

Bizarre question, eh. So poor people would seem like poor people in places of power and influence? I believe your posting rather deranged sentences here.

>104 RickHarsch:

I don't know what to expect if "a usually-poor person" should come to hold an important high office.

As it does with others, much/everything would depend on the individual. But I think the idea is fascinating and deserves our consideration.

The first hurdle I can see is this:
Any poor person with sufficient drive and intelligence to withstand the pressure to yield to manipulators who'd try to ensure that wealth's interests always prevailed, would also likely refuse enter into and to sumbit to either the circus which is campaigning or, supposing an election, the attempts to force the person to play the typical traditional role of the shiny besuited moron with the lapel-pin American flag. And, of course if he or she _couldn't_ withstand those pressures, then we'd know what to expect and there'd be no point in his or her being in office in the first place.

So your just engaging your own private mental game in public. I see.

>106 RickHarsch:

I call it "discussing ideas in an open forum" --yes, for me, it's a mental activity. I don't pretend to speak for you. An uncharitable person, lacking imagination, could, yes, describe it as you have, with a snide remark which neither refutes any point I have made nor even tries to respond to one of them constructively. But _you're_ welcome. Sharing my "private mental games" here is a compliment which I pay to you and which you repay in a rude remark.

Amazing what Rube Goldberg left behind.

" Young People Are Right To Be Angry About Their Financial Insecurity " -- Joseph Stiglitz



http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/16/young-people-right-to-be-angry-f...

...'In short, today’s young people view the world through the lens of intergenerational fairness. The children of the upper-middle class may do well in the end, because they will inherit wealth from their parents. While they may not like this kind of dependence, they dislike even more the alternative: a “fresh start” in which the cards are stacked against their attainment of anything approaching what was once viewed as a basic middle-class lifestyle.

'These inequities cannot easily be explained away. It isn’t as if these young people didn’t work hard: these hardships affect those who spent long hours studying, excelled in school and did everything “right”. The sense of social injustice – that the economic game is rigged – is enhanced as they see the bankers who brought on the financial crisis, the cause of the economy’s continuing malaise, walk away with mega-bonuses, with almost no one being held accountable for their wrongdoing. Massive fraud was committed, but somehow, no one actually perpetrated it. Political elites promised that “reforms” would bring unprecedented prosperity. And they did, but only for the top 1%. Everyone else, including the young, got unprecedented insecurity.'

The kind of boss who doesn’t like to promote women

"The results show that women have a much harder time making partner when they work under male bosses who donate to Republicans.

Gender inequality is already a huge issue at large law practices. Women consistently earn less, are underrepresented among leadership, and they make partner at about two-thirds the rate of men."

>110 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Classic!

Pity the poor struggling corporate lawyers, trying to make "partner."

I heard that lawyering was a profession. I heard that, with the law degree and the Bar Exam passed, one could go into practice for one's self. I'd have thought that the most talented people, whatever their gender, could "write their own ticket" as my father used to say. I imagine that the best women in legal practice, finding themselves denied their due at any given male-dominated law firm, could join their talents and resources, start their own firm and, competing with their troglodyte counterparts, beat those male bigots at their own game.

"Lawyers In Love"

I can't keep up with what's been going on
I think my heart must just be slowing down
Among the human beings in their designer jeans
Am I the only one who hears the screams
And the strangled cries of lawyers in love

God sends his spaceships to America, the beautiful
They land at six o'clock and there we are, the dutiful
Eating from TV trays, tuned into to Happy Days
Waiting for World War III while Jesus slaves
To the mating calls of lawyers in love

Last night I watched the news from Washington, the capital
The Russians escaped while we weren't watching them, like Russians will
Now we've got all this room, we've even got the moon
And I hear the U.S.S.R. will be open soon
As vacation land for lawyers in love

--Jackson Browne

Meanwhile, during your hand-wringing over women at brand-name law firms who are stuck at Junior partner, making under three-million a year, not counting benefits, the poor, who are vacuuming the firm's carpets, emptying the waste baskets and cleaning the restrooms after hours--they are completely shut out of a role that goes beyond putting a little ballot into a ballot box once every two years or so and returning to their jobs by which they barely scrape out a living--if you can call it that.

Meanwhile, in Europe, poor Horatio the Algerian, struggles to climb the EU ladder...

The sad thing is, he misunderstood the link completely... That's ok, though, because the person writing the piece misread the situation entirely.

Obviously the reason that liberal law firms have more women "advancing" is because of their liberal (and by liberal, I mean lax to non-existent) hiring and promotion policies...

They'll obviously kick any dumb broad up the ladder just to satisfy some misguided notion of political correctness.

>113 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

I read and replied to _your_ citations from the link, not to the entirety of the article at the link. If your selected cites were not reflective of the article's major points then that's _your_ fault, not mine. If you don't want me to miss the point of your linked cite, don't misrepresent it in your excerpts. That's minmal courtesy to your readers. Otherwise they could think you're deliberately trying to set and spring traps.

I edge carefully around those Wiedinmyer posts, having lost several digits to them already.

The glass ceiling debates over who gets to run corporations is for corporatists. It's not that interesting to me who the next batch of millionaires and billionaires are going to be. I know there are going to be some and I expect that most all of them won't give a rat's ass who they'll have to climb over or exactly how they get to their lofty ambition. Whether they're white, black, male or female--my first impulse is to think they can fuck off.

If we're arguing about supermarket or fast food checkout ladies or how much we should value dumping wastebaskets or sweeping/washing floors---raising their standards of living is a lot more interesting to me. For every top end corporate executive there's hundreds if not thousands of them. They are the ones we should think about first.

>116 lriley:

What he said! Hear! Hear!

http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/08/heres-what-happens-when-you-photoshop-the-men-out-...

For you, Lola...

If we're arguing about supermarket or fast food checkout ladies or how much we should value dumping wastebaskets or sweeping/washing floors---raising their standards of living is a lot more interesting to me. For every top end corporate executive there's hundreds if not thousands of them. They are the ones we should think about first.

Yeah, but if you're looking to better the position of the people on the bottom, you'll be arguing with the people at the top. Who largely seem to be...

#120--FWIW I started the ding dong thread here the day Thatcher croaked. It's true there are not very many examples of women as world leaders but the few there have been at least from the more powerful countries have not done anything to change the way I look at world leaders at all. On the horizon is Hillary Clinton--maybe Marine Le Pen.

The Scandinavian governments---that's the direction I'd like to see the United States go towards. I voted Jill Stein--Green Party in 2012. I'm registered a Green and I like her a lot but she's not really on the radar here.

>118 LolaWalser:

A cleverly made point! By the way, if I may point out, strictly with regard to her policy positions, mind you, there is really nothing to distinguish Frau Merkel from her male colleagues pictured there.

Which, really, is central to my point.

>121 lriley:

Well exactly! I really don't know how your point can be adequately answered by _our_ critics. In response to calls for a fairer, more humane social and political order, feminists--women & men--call roboticly for "more women" in places of power. Not more humane people, just more women. Their particular faults or qualities are simply beside the point for these feminists.

It is this that makes these people--who are often used to thinking of themselves as enlightened--obstacles to a more just order and at the same time the de facto allies of a narrow kind of wealth-and-privilege-serving elite rule.

Not since Catholics vied with Puritans has the world suffered from such a sterile and destructive ideological rivalry.

Looking at that picture is like looking at the capitalist version of the Politburo. The old men's clubs---staid and conservative. Everything locked up for the wealthiest of their respective countries who again are probably mostly men but maybe a little bit better mixed than in the photo. In the US anyway we have all the Walton women. Anyway they've mostly got things the way they want things to be and they're not interested changing them in any way that might create the conditions for better wealth distribution in their respective societies. All the people in the picture are linked to the political and economic processes in place in their respective countries. They represent the wealthiest interests first and foremost. That's why IMO they've become what they've become. They're trusted by the wealthiest entities whether people or banks or corporations to do their bidding. Lackeys really.

.....and when the economy tanks--those interests get protected and the people get austerity. Their entitlement to their wealth overrides every consideration.

.....and we might as well link the media---at least the major media in with all this---propagating the same myths of hierarchy and patriarchy and trickle down economics. The beneficent raining on us. Between the politicians and their sound bites and these goof fucking ball pretty people 0n the 24-7 news channels and others of our media disseminating for us our glorious way of life--sometimes it seems like I've been dropped into kindergarten class--like we need these assholes to explain to us how to use a fork and a spoon.

.....and I don't like saying this but Hillary Clinton will fit very well into that picture. You could easily fit her right in the center--or a little bit to the right--(paraphrasing loosely on Nicanor Parra).

To me Sanders campaign was never really meant to be in any shape or form. After working very hard at it--they've managed to link him to $5000 total in individual donations from this or that lobbyist---which was a way of claiming he took lobbyist money---and they linked him to Wall St. money through donations doled out by the fund to elect democrat senators--curious in that not being officially a democrat that party gives him anything at all even if they want badly for him to caucus with them--to do their committee work and basically support their agenda. His campaign seemed very much to me anyway as an outlier--it's disconnection to the monied interests.

A comment on Mrs. Thatcher who from what I've read about her absolutely hated other women in government. If I'm remembering correctly in all her time in power she only ever appointed one or two to any position of real power and they didn't last long. OTOH with a few exceptions (such as Airey Neave--who the INLA blew to smithereens) she did like her male appointees to grovel a lot--and they almost always did. In her own way she was as megalomaniacal as Stalin or Hitler.

I was reading a few reflections by Richard Rohr this morning, with the overall title "Bias from the Bottom". I think they have some relevance to "the establishment". They're written from a Christian perspective, but may contain grains of truth that others can also appreciate.

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1103098668616&ca=d45affed-e...

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1103098668616&ca=9e2ef3a6-4...

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1103098668616&ca=87b2974b-3...

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1103098668616&ca=6f7f44fe-2...

(DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 23JAN13 - Paul Singer, Principal, Elliott Management, USA is seen during the session 'The Global Financial Context - Reinforcing Critical Systems' at the Annual Meeting 2013 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 23, 2013. Copyright by World Economic Forum. swiss-image.ch/Photo Remy Steinegger / Source: Wikipedia Creative Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Paul Elliott Singer (born August 22, 1944) is an American hedge fund manager, activist investor, and philanthropist.

Everyone on this guy's Blackberry phone-list. Case closed.

Robert ("Bob") Mercer (b. 1946) and wife, Diane Mercer, Head of the Harbor, (Long Island), N.Y. /

-----------

James Harris Simons (b. 1938) and wife, Marilyn H. Simons, Long Island, N.Y.

------

Given that Trump won the nomination, I guess we can conclude that there is no such thing as the Establishment. Or at least that it is not so monolithic, so uniform in opinion, so diabolical that it could "thwart the will of The People."

Vox populi vox dei.

What hypocrites liberals are. Trying to be Establishment and anti-Establishment at the same time.

America has always been fairly anti-Establishment, which is one reason why conservatism has never taken root here and never will.

I wish someone could thwart the will of The Peole. The People are idiots. Look at who our candidates are. Is that intelligent?

>127 barney67: 'What hypocrites liberals are. Trying to be Establishment and anti-Establishment at the same time.' There is some sense in that...I will not express surprise...I will NOT express surprise...I WILL NOT express surprise!

"I wish someone could thwart the will of The Peole. The People are idiots. Look at who our candidates are. Is that intelligent?"

It depends on where one sits. From Paul Singer's point of view, Hillary Clinton shall be more than fine and he is supposedly very likely to wind up seeing her elected. From his point of view, yes, that's intelligent. For a guy who's used to controlling the general parameters of the entire political spectrum, he's only slightly inconvenienced by the current circumstances.

You shouldn't confuse intelligence with only those outcomes which suit or make sense to you.

RE : ... " I guess we can conclude that there is no such thing as the Establishment." ...

Wrong.

... "Or at least that it is not so monolithic, so uniform in opinion, so diabolical that it could "thwart the will of The People."

While it isn't either completely monolithic or uniform, it certainly can and does thwart the will of the people. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Education?