3 thoughts on “Week 12 Day 1 – pick a passage

  • April 27, 2022 at 2:19 pm

    wanted to share another extract for conversation.

    “The United States’ permissive approach to hate speech differs greatly from many other Democracies. For example, members of the European Union, Canada, and South Africa all have legal prohibitions against hate speech.”
    “The use of misogynistic hate speech to intimidate women journalists is particularly problematic because it impedes the functioning of a free press.”

    This is an interesting conversation. according to wikipedia, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the Constitution. yet, an important aspect of this is the free dispersal of information in the press. When female voices are silenced, belittled and threatened by such hate speech, we lose an important perspective in the interpretation of information and news. Outside of legal ramifications, Carlson rexcommends some form of counter free speech campaign against hate speech but I cant see how this would work. Rather, I imagine this would incite those conducting hate speech to double down which could cause even more issues. I’d be interested to hear our classes views on whether hate speech can be addressed without backing in policy.

  • April 26, 2022 at 1:51 pm

    A passage that I wanted to highlight from the reading (The Mary Sue) is:
    “Those Democratic primary debate stages are going to look very different than ever before, and as Bee notes, “now that there are so many ladies running, maybe we can stop talking about the tone and volume of their voice, their outfits, or their marriages, and instead judge them based on their ideas and experience.”
    I wanted to pick out this passage because I recently wrote a paper on the Trayvon Martin court case for another class about how Rachel Jeantel was discredited and unfairly treated because of her race, sex, appearance, and the way she spoke. This is exactly the same thing we are seeing in electoral politics, where the media focuses on the way that they speak or how they are dressed rather than what they are saying. Women in far too many settings are faced with misogynistic comments, and are not heard. When men are unlikeable and face criticism it is usually about what they are saying or doing, whereas with women the criticism doesn’t even get so far as to what they are saying, but rather focuses on their appearances and just their ways of being.
    Another passage that articles this well from the same reading is:
    “But of course, that label isn’t applied equally across the board. Women are often deemed “unlikable” for just existing–for having women’s voices and women’s bodies that exist in what many view (even unconsciously) as spaces belonging to men.”

    • April 27, 2022 at 2:15 pm

      I found Hope’s writing particularly relevent so wanted to include some supplements from another reading.

      “She has a great asset as a public person, which is a radiant smile, but she has a not so attractive voice, and I think for much of her speech tonight, she lapsed into that familiar lecturing tone. And I suspect that there were some people that, even who agreed with her words, found the tone off-putting,”

      This is a passage Carlson references to that I think is linked to Hope’s point. It refers to Carlson’s assessment that, “sexism in the political sphere often revolves around women candidates failing to be appropriately “feminine.”” Hilary Clinton is a particularly confident and determined public speaker. Attributed to any other candidate (including Trump himself) this would be construed as strength, character and fortitutde. For Hilary, it is seen as lecturing and off-putting.

      Why is it off putting? It seems to harm a fallacy surrounding the male exclusivity of these traits to men. I’d be interested to discuss the implications of this and get Hope’s take

Leave a Reply

Sites DOT MiddleburyThe Middlebury site network.