I saw this amazing clip this weekend from FOX where the anchors attacked a women because she left her kids with family and friends to participate in the Occupy Wall Street protests.
The mother, Stacey Hessler of Florida, was saying that she felt this was a historic moment for citizens to take to the streets. It is funny how such commitment is inspiring in those who share your views, but disgusting for those who do not.
The New York Post has a decidedly negative profile of her, though it seems short on independent sources. What is striking about the Fox report is the view that any mother who leaves her children to join such a protest is “filth.”
“Anon,
The I’m for the 99% is just your usual tactic. You use an opening line of seeming agreement with a viewpoint to then attack those expressing that viewpoint. This has been a constant since you’ve arrived here and the basis for my seeing you as fundamentally dishonest. in your bizarre world everyone but you is a hypocrite. That is either a severe case of projection and/or hypocrisy.”
Mike, if you don’t want to respond to me, that’s totally cool.
If you think I’m “against the 99%” then just show me one statement, ONE STATEMENT, that supports your position.
It’s amusing to me that you’ve told me off for claiming you’re a liberal when really you’re an iconoclast, and yet, here you are, demanding everyone fit into your pre-determined boxes.
@lk
“Anon: “The evidence dramatically leans to showing she made this decision unilaterally and without their support.
If a man had gone off like this on a mid-life crisis you would be first in line to bash him”
—————–
LOL, but if they were a Republican politician FOX would not. That’s the issue. I think you’re on the verge of catching on in a kinda’ sideways fashion.”
You don’t get it.
I DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT FOX.
Think globally, act locally.
I GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU.
What you and so many others here do is to destroy discourse. You rationalize it with some weird us vs. them categorization. You dehumanize people. You demean them.
You take what might be an interesting discussion and you demand it be addressed as black and white, good or evil.
And then you and your buddies demand everyone fit in to your simple categories or face the consequences.
Screw Fox News, they are a bunch of jackasses. But that has nothing to do with the many many intellectually dishonest decisions made in the threads of this blog everyday.
“They started it first” and “They are worse” is not a valid excuse for your piss poor arguments.
anon – Are you requesting that I apologize to you for your weasel wording?
Come on man. I don’t have a dog in your sexism fight. I’ve only been reading this blog for a month and posted once a couple of days ago. I don’t know all the posters well and I’m not going to pretend to know you and all your views.
However, on this subject you are so far out of touch with the reality of women in today’s society as to almost be an object of pity. That’s what makes your argument so senseless and so 1950’s-ish.
You’ve characterized quite a few of these posters as stupid but you are the one still fighting a battle that ended years ago. Weasel wording and insult throwing are your only defenses against a reality you refuse to accept.
You’re a throw-back, anon, and all these people can see it. I’m new and I’m giving you word.
@lk, if like OS, you want to say the whole thing is none of your business, I think that’s a fine position.
But that’s not what you do.
Over and over, like others, you defend her, and in doing so make many unsupported charges.
1. When I point out how bogus those charges are, you cannot retreat back to saying, “it’s all irrelevant.”
2. If you’re going to defend a woman in 2011 from charges you see are sexist from Fox News, it’s complete reasonable to examine your own positions and see how sexist they are. Again, if you’re going to attack someone X as being a sexist, don’t be surprised when other people examine your shit and find you to be a sexist pig.
And I will state it again, father or mother, leave your kids for 2 weeks in 2011 to Manhattan where you are surrounded by cell phones and only call them (including a 7 year old) three times? You’re a bad parent.
Defend only calling the family up three times.
3. Filth. Well it is a new issue, but you’re the one that demanded I look at the stupid video. And in the video, that’s the explanation of why the jackass compared her to filth.
4. ““The FOX segment decries her being at variance with her role as a wife and mother. ‘Her husband’s a banker,right?’ ‘So why couldn’t’t she just protest at home?’ … ‘She’s only called her children 3 times’ stated twice, the implication being that a good mother would call them more often.””
Your role as mother/wife may not be her role, or Blouise’s role. It may not be the role Mike’s wife has with Mike.
But to the best of our knowledge, HER role with her husband and her kids WAS to be the stay at home mother while the husband works and brings home the paycheck.
It is not sexist to note that she, unilaterally, without the consent of her family, broke that role and abandoned that responsibility.
That’s not sexism. That’s understanding the impact of her choices.
And why she can’t protest closer to home is a very salient question. As I pointed out there are half a dozen occupy movements within her state. Two of which are under an hour away by car.
Going to NY for a weekend, or a week, coming home to participate at Occupy Orlando, Occupy Daytona, Occupy Miami, Occupy Tallahassee would be very effective — I am sure those movements can benefit from ONE MORE person much more than OWS can benefit from one more person.
5. The Fox jackass believes the military analogy is not appropriate because
a) soldiers are risking life and limb, she is risking, … what is she risking?
b) soldiers are safeguarding the country and the Fox jackass does not consider her fight against the 1% to be accomplishing anything
c) soldiers are highly cognizant of the family they leave behind, and she has seemingly completely abandoned her family.
Here’s the deal LK, I can think that Fox is a highly biased mostly bullshit news outlet, and I can STILL think this woman’s decisions are pretty much shit, and I can STILL support OWS and most liberal positions.
If you don’t like that, take it up with Walt Whitman and so many others.
I am large, I contain multitudes.
I know it makes your tummy hurt that you can’t put boxes around everyone. Screw you and Spindell too. Wasn’t the lesson of the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90, 00s, that we should not put boxes around people and demand others sit in our boxes!?
What did Professor Turley say in the post immediately prior to this one?
We have allowed our states and cities to shutdown basic services and programs while spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan. Yet, we do not hold the Democratic or Republican leaders responsible for this disastrous policy. There remains a disconcerting disconnect in our political system where politicians are not held accountable for major failures. Instead, voters are mesmerized by the arguments of both parties that the only thing that matters is keeping the other party from power. Our “blue state/red state” fixation has become the bread and circus distraction of modern politics. Politicians have succeeded in getting many voters to view politics as a team support where they have to cheer their team even if they hate the owner and lament the plays. Whether it is torture or the wars or the environment, there is no issue that is more important than supporting the team. It is a brilliant success of the two parties who control this country. They use each other to motivate voters and avoid responsibility.
Screw your blue state/red state fixation.
Mike the iconoclast keeps on demanding I clearly state my position. Ha!
The answer is Mu.
Anon: “The evidence dramatically leans to showing she made this decision unilaterally and without their support.
If a man had gone off like this on a mid-life crisis you would be first in line to bash him”
—————–
LOL, but if they were a Republican politician FOX would not. That’s the issue. I think you’re on the verge of catching on in a kinda’ sideways fashion.
Okay, Mike this should be really simple.
You wrote:
“… The point of OWS is that the 1% are screwing the 99%. That is fact. The question then becomes whether you are in favor of, or against that screwing.”
I wrote:
“I’m against the screwing of the 99% by the 1%, and nothing I have written suggests otherwise. (This sort of deliberate misreading seems to be a typical tactic of yours, if I don’t agree 1 trillion percent with you, you like to make the situation binary and suggest I am the enemy.)”
Now you write:
“The truth is you are fundamentally dishonest and purposely mis-characterized the thrust of my argument purposely. … You never open up with your point of view in your comments,”
So please tell me how I mischaracterized the thrust of your argument:
Perhaps you can begin by explaining why I am wrong to say you are accusing me of being in favor of the 1% screwing the 99%.
Then you can go through this thread and point to my misogynist statements, my anti-99% statements, and my anti-OWS statements.
“You never open up with your point of view in your comments”
It’s really not my job to have to paint an explicit picture of all my points of view in order to request you not treat me as your favorite stereotype.
I presented cogent arguments, connected series of statements intended to support a proposition. I presented links to facebook and elsewhere to support my statements.
You may have to deal with facts, evidence, and logic without the benefit of simplifying condescending stereotypes.
It’s not my job to have to paint an explicit picture of all my points of view in order to request you not treat me as your favorite stereotype.
In fact you could say thank you to me for not only challenging you to overcome your stereotypes and lazy ass dehumanizing simplistic reductionist beliefs but expecting you have the sophistication to be able to handle it.
Anon,
The I’m for the 99% is just your usual tactic. You use an opening line of seeming agreement with a viewpoint to then attack those expressing that viewpoint. This has been a constant since you’ve arrived here and the basis for my seeing you as fundamentally dishonest. in your bizarre world everyone but you is a hypocrite. That is either a severe case of projection and/or hypocrisy.
Hugh, believe me, it’s confusing for us all sometimes but you’re quick on the uptake, you got it now. 🙂
Now it’s time for you to call me a name and continue with your
usual anonymous bullshit which is so inanely predictable.
Anon, “As I said, tell me you would be defending her just the same if she was either a father from Florida at Zuchotti Park, or a mother at a tea party convention that had done the same.”
I’ll type this slowly, Unless she stabbed them all to death before she left it’s not news and I don’t care, even then I may not care in any meaningful way. The only relevance this woman has is that she is a ‘demon’ that FOX can use to impugn the protest. When FOX starts reporting daily on every person that leaves their family for weeks at a time then any disparity in opinion your fellow bloggers make might be a cause for discussion but until then it is irrelevant. You want an argument on the sexism (or lack thereof) of your fellow bloggers. Nobody is going to play with you on that field.
Regarding my “misstatement” of the FOX clip I stated my objections to it as being sexist specifically (in response to you) as:
“The FOX segment decries her being at variance with her role as a wife and mother. ‘Her husband’s a banker,right?’ ‘So why couldn’t’t she just protest at home?’ … ‘She’s only called her children 3 times’ stated twice, the implication being that a good mother would call them more often.”
As a NEW issue, you state that the word “Filth” came up because she used the analogy of a soldier going off (overseas presumably). Why does that comparison render her or anyone “Filth”? The issue was clarified (for the FOX commentators and presumably to most) by her not being shot at. Horrors!, she invoked the military and FOX didn’t see an equivalency. I do but it’s more fundamental than implied at first consideration. It doesn’t. Just more demonization
What about all those military folks that found out they were going to be stop-gapped 2 or 3 or 4 times with short leaves? Was that a family decision? What about all those soldiers that decided to re-up for Iraq and Afghanistan tours voluntarily, several times, keeping them away from their spouse’s and children for, ultimately, years?
What about the fundamental decision to marry and start a family knowing that you will be sent overseas, maybe disabled or killed but kept from the family that also needs you for a year or several years or forever? Obviously, for many military members, the needs of their family don’t come first; they choose a family as a adjunct for their career in the military or as secondary importance to their desire to return to foreign shores for whatever reason. Their employer sure don’t give a shit about the families IMO.
Maybe a military comparison was the perfect analogy, as it would be with many professions. What’s wrong with that, once you get beyond the knee-jerk rah, rah because it’s the military?
BTW, haven’t you heard, those hippies are waging war, class war. FOX says so. 🙂
@Hugh,
everyday, SwM comes here to tell us how evil the menz are. As in this thread, she doesn’t respond to criticism, she just reposts the same link and tells us that men hatez her because she has a vagina.
LK, is not nearly as bad as Gene is, but as you can see from OS and MS and so many others there really isn’t a whole lot of any intellectual argument in these threads, just a bunch of partisan nimrods telling us all how evil the other side is.
The only real question is if Gene is really that stupid, or just a huge liar, or maybe both.
Anyway, shorter Hugh,
“I concede anon, you were right both times, and I was wrong both times, but I still dislike you because you disagree with me. — Hugh”
Next time Hugh, a simple, earlier, apology is really all that is necessary.
Anon,
The truth is you are fundamentally dishonest and purposely mis-characterized the thrust of my argument purposely. Your game is to claim a moderate outlook while defending the right wing by accusing it’s opponents. You never open up with your point of view in your comments, rather you always attack others with inappropriate name calling. Why should I try to even dialogue with such as you?
it’s just not possible for you to have a civil conversation, is it?
don’t bother answering, you’ll be talking to yourself.
Face it Gene, as always, you have are arguing from nothing but the poopy diaper you’re typing in.
My position has been consistent, she is one adult in a partnership with her husband and her four kids.
The evidence dramatically leans to showing she made this decision unilaterally and without their support.
If a man had gone off like this on a mid-life crisis you would be first in line to bash him.
Instead you are being an Internet White Knight and Internet Tough Guy and like so many others here, defending her dumb choices and abandonment of her responsibility.
There is sexism here, it is yours and the rest. None of you guys even have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Anyway, enjoy your poopy diapers Gene, it’s not my thing but hey go for it if you like it, however, if you have to smell your fingers, at least wash your hands before eating.
Face it, anon.
Your entire position is sexist. It narrows down to her place is at home taking care of the children because she’s a woman and implying that somehow dad and the older kids can’t take care of the younger children without her being there. Of course you’d never say that explicitly about her or the father because the feminists here would tear you a new one worse than they already are. Hugh has quite aptly noted that you’re a weasel. Try to gussy it up however you like.
I see. @SwM really meant @LK. And Swarthmore mom is an idiot but lottakatz is not an idiot, just a table pounder?
I am new to this whole thing but I know a weasel worder when I read one and you are a weasel worder.
Hey Gene, tell me one thing I’ve said here that is sexist.
What I said was the preponderance of evidence from the articles, her mom, her facebook page, her husband is that she does not have the support of her family on her adventure.
I never said the older kids and husband couldn’t care for the younger ones.
I asked if the family had made that a group decision and showed the evidence is they had not.
So Mr. Lawyer, answer my question. Pretend the man had done this and you’re representing the woman in the custody case. How do you phrase what the man has done?
Yes, let’s disparage the woman for not meeting your anonymous, sexist and highly dubious standards. I suppose it never occurred to that thing you call a mind that she may be setting an an educational example that sometimes it is important to make sacrifices to be politically active. Let’s also disparage the older children and the father as being unable to care for a 7 and 13 year old without mom’s supervision.
Yeah.
You’re full of something alright, anon.
“The main duty she is apparently neglecting is the kids, 7, 13, 15, and 17. Especially the 17 year old.”
Whoops, that should of course be
“The main duty she is apparently neglecting is to the kids, 7, 13, 15, and 17. Especially to the 7 year old.”
Splitting on your 7 year old for 2 weeks or longer with only three phone calls is pretty bad shit in my books.
As I asked LK, if the man had done this, and the woman was asking for a divorce and custody, how exactly would you phrase the man’s behavior and the importance of what he had done in the petition for custody?
Hugh said, “anon is full of weasel words”.
That anon is full of something is without dispute, but that’s a terrible thing to say about weasels or any member of the Mustelidae family.
Hugh, you’re such a dumbass.
8:57 is clearly a comment to LK at 8:32, not to SwM.
If you can’t keep these things straight, why don’t you go back to SpongeBob reruns.
@LK, fine,
So goaded, by you, and maybe you’re right to do so, I watch the video. It’s in the first two minutes, and then from 2:45 to the end.
And yet, it’s still more clear than ever that you totally misrepresented what the idiots on Fox had to say.
Amazing isn’t it that in the 21st century the wife/mother role is still considered so absolute and constricting that a woman can’t go off for a few weeks and do something selfless? I see people cleaning the park and I think of the humility of Jesus, washing the feet of his apostles. Humility and the elevating nature of servitude in a great cause (or faith) is something the FOX hosts apparently have never considered- they must have missed that weeks Sunday school lesson. (Yea, strange image to pop into the mind of an atheist, I know.)
Is being a mother such a superhuman task that a mere husband can’t handle it for a few weeks? Is that what FOX would have us believe? I guess that explains how husbands can take off for a week at a time to go hunting and leave the household to their WonderWoman wives. Even minimally qualified husbands ought to be insulted by the implication of that FOX story.
*************
The reason the first jackass says she is filth is because she compared military service to OWS, presumably it’s clarified because she is not being shot at, and they feel that camping in a park and protesting has very little in common with military service.
That has nothing to do with the wife/mother role. In the entire video, nothing anyone said had anything to do with either being unimpressed or overly impressed with the difficulty of her role as mother, or said anything about the husband being able to do the tasks or not do the tasks.
The main duty she is apparently neglecting is the kids, 7, 13, 15, and 17. Especially the 17 year old.
And again, when the military go off to Afghanistan, the family has been preparing for this for weeks and months. The Army has helped put in place support systems.
What she seems to do here is split and leave the family in a lurch such that her own mom says she is being selfish.
Your straw is entirely straw, and has nothing to do with the fox video.
You write: “I guess that explains how husbands can take off for a week at a time to go hunting and leave the household to their WonderWoman wives” And again, there is nothing similar to a husband’s planned week long trip and her taking off for 2-3 to indefinitely on an unplanned, unprepared for, no mutual consent basis.
None of this has anything to do with her being a woman or a mother. It has everything to do with being a partner in a committed relationship, and one with children.
And as wrote:
“Just tell me that if you read a man had done this you would think he was somehow heroic and justified and that the wife and kids should not be upset.
Just tell me that if she were a teabagger and this was a teabag party you would feel the same way.”
”
And
“Yes, a good mother or father with a seven year old at home 1000 miles away would call them more often than three times in two weeks.
No one needs a cord from Foxnews jacked into their cranium to understand that.
Do you really think there is any excuse for her not to be calling her kids and husband more than three times in two weeks?
As I said, tell me you would be defending her just the same if she was either a father from Florida at Zuchotti Park, or a mother at a tea party convention that had done the same.
And did you read anything I wrote before? There are a half dozen occupy movements in her state, including one within 20 miles of her, and it’s clear her participation there would be much more powerful and effective than her joining thousands camping out in Manhattan.
“