Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Arnold vs. women

Oh, oh. And he isn’t even president of Harvard. As if "girlie men" wasn’t bad enough, it looks like Gov. Arnold is making some women mad. He is accused, again: The female executive director of the California Nurses Association says:

"He behaves like an arrogant patriarch with respect to women’s occupations. Nurses, teachers, home health workers — it’s vulgar how he’s run roughshod over them. He’s arrogant, and he’s a bully."

Another female critic of Arnold copied this: "The arrogance of taking on teachers, nurses and other professions where women are underpaid, overworked and vital to society is beyond the pale. But Arnold is someone who treats women as objects, so it’s natural for him to have a tendency to disregard and devalue professions that are made up of women."

Clever tack, this. Get self-righteous leaders of organizations who represent factions that are losing support, like the California Teachers Association, to say that they represent women, and then attack Arnold for attacking women. Makes perfect sense.

Discussions - 21 Comments

Teachers and nurses? Last time I was my son’s school, in MISTER BAILY’s class room, I saw a lot of men in a teaching position. And last time I visited a friend at the local hospitcal, where the MALE NURSE was attending to her, I saw lots of men who were nurses.

Perhaps these spokeswomen are confusing arrogance against women with disregard for the person who represents the power-mad unions. Perhaps the Gov simply doesn’t want to cater to a self-interest group.

In typical liberal whining fashion though, it can’t be as simple as must be that the republican Gov has it out for women and he has a disregard for them.

I suppose I can measure our Governor’s effectivness by the enemies he is making. So far, he’s doing great.

And imagine if Arnold had the audacity to refer to nursing or teaching as "women’s occupations." The NOW would have a field day. So, when are their spokesmen -- oops, spokespeople -- going to go after the nursing association director?

Further evidence, if any more were needed, that the Left simply cannot think. They are simply name-callers and crude manipulators of language, and by now have name-called and blathered their way out of any legitimate claim to dialogue with intelligent people.

Too bad so many voters are fooled.

Just out of curiosity, which is it: the Left cannot think, or the Left is comprised of intellectual elitists, indoctrinating and contaminating academia?

Both. Many "intellectuals" can’t think.

While some people on the Left can think, the Left as a whole cannot. And that includes many of its "intellectuals."

Dan, You’re right to some extent. It is an over-simplification to apply both at the same time, unless you consider the context of the statement. In this case there are really two groups here. There’s the Dean/Polosi/Reid leaders who are shaping the message, and then there are the street level liberals, like the spokes people in the local unions, that are in fact, not thinking beyond this one issue.

They whine about mistreatment, attribute it to the gov demeaning women, and remove themselves from the negotiations. Afterall, how can you negotiate with a beast like Arnold. If they approached like he was out of touch, they could stay engaged claiming to educate their opponent. But since they paint him as a brute, they out cold. So, they lose before they even get out of the gate.

The statement applies.

I must admit that I expected a copout from Mr. Frisk for his answer, but I thought it would have been more cogent than it turned out.

Gary, your response satisfies.

Dan - I must admit, I expected a better response from you. Based on your answer, I believe there is NOTHING I could have said that would not illicit the "cop out" label from you.

In case you didn’t notice, that’s a challenge. Where is this a cop out? It’s easy to toss a gernade and run away. Anyone can declare victory and split. Tell me, where is this a cop out?

Mr. Oliver, your question (in Comment 4) was a superficial and shallow one to begin with. It was not intelligent enough to deserve an extended response.

That said, I fully stand by my response to you. The gist of it, once again, is that "intellectuals" can’t necessarily think.

Or do you think they necessarily can?

And do you think a short answer is necessarily a "cop-out"?

Just to clear some things up . . .

in·tel·lec·tu·al = of or relating to the intellect

in·tel·lect = the ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding

So, Mr. Frisk, are you suggesting that the Left has been mislabeled as "intellectual elitists"? Because if that’s what you think, then I understand what you’re saying. If not, then I’m confused . . .

"Intellectual elitists" is an accurate term for them in two senses. One, their particular form of elitism is based on a contempt for people who do not have, or demonstrate, what they inaccurately define as "intellect."

Two, they can be called "intellectuals" in the sense that they are outwardly concerned with the life of the mind: That is, they are surrounded by books, they read a lot of relatively complicated stuff, they teach, they know big words, they discuss ideas (or "ideas"), etc.

None of that means they can THINK.

Got it?

Then what, exactly, is your definition of thought, Mr. Frisk?

In a political context, it starts with a willingness to try to understand, and listen to, the concerns of the other side, rather than going to war with them every time they open their mouths. The Left, by and large, simply does not do this. They are just name-calling and railing at us with their slogans.

Well, Mr. Frisk, now that you have clarified what you think the word "thought" means (which is definitely not the definition in my dictionary . . . ), we can now finally understand where you’re coming from.

Of course, according to your definition of "thought", neither party, in my opinion, thinks very much.

I have not given a definition of "thought." I have described what I think is an indispensable basis for "thought" in a political context.
And I would defend that 100 percent.

I should like to repeat my request for your definition of "thought," then. The least you could do, when saying that the Left "as a whole" cannot do something, is give a real definition of what that something is.

Dan - I just got back here. I have read all the responses. I get it, and agree with David. What don’t you get? He’s been pretty clear. In the context of this discussion he’s made the point. And in addition to that, he’s given examples of people I believe we have all run across at one point.

At this point, do you have a point?

Gary - I feel like Mr. Frisk has yet to really explain Comment #11 . . . Mr. Frisk basically states that reading books, discussion, and accumulating an extensive vocabulary does not require thought. I disagree. At first, I thought he explained it by explaining what he meant by the word "think", but he later stated that I was mistaken in assuming that. So, in order to better explain his comment, I would like to re-ask Dan’s already re-asked question: What is your definition of "thought", Mr. Frisk?

That’s what I don’t get. I think Dan is getting at a good point. Mr. Frisk’s comments are confusing. They need an explaination and that’s what Dan is after in this discussion. Sorry if you have a hard time understanding why we might want an explaination. Frisk hasn’t made a single point yet . . . except that he has a hard time of communicating himself to we "intellectual, name-calling leftists".

Hi Everyone,

I know I’m jumping in on this topic pretty late, but I couldn’t help noticing that the original piece about The Arnold - which appears to be defending him - was posted by Peter Schramm. Isn’t this the same person who a couple weeks back was writing so favorably about chivalry, and how he gave one of his students the boot for "mistreating a young lady"?? Well, if we assume & agree that a certain part of chivalry is acting to defend women in certain scenarios, then I think anyone who supports chivalry should be appalled by Schwarzenegger’s well-known UNchivalrous behavior around women - groping, pinching, breast-grabbing, inappropriate remarks, creepy boasts about his sexual prowess, etc (Clintonesque and THEN SOME!). Or would Arnold make up for all of this by opening some doors for women (literally, doors - it doesn’t sound as if he’s trying to open any metahprical doors for women)??

I don’t know about the situation with the nurses, teachers and home health aides in CA. If women comprise a significant majority of those organizations, isn’t it fair to say that those orgs represent (at least some) women?

My aunt has been a nurse in CA for 23 years, and she has confirmed most of the criticism I’ve read of Arnold, policy-wise.

Thanks - Erica Resnis

{I meant to write "metaphorical doors" above, of course - sorry...}

What don’t I get?

Let’s look at some of the things Mr. Frisk has shown us (in only a rough chronological order):

1) The Left is a bunch of name-callers (a statement which must, then, somehow escape also being name-calling, because why would Mr. Frisk employ a shallow tactic which he just reprimanded his opposition for using?).

2) The Left has name-called and blathered its way out of deserving dialogue with any intelligent people (yet for some reason, Mr. Frisk persists in talking to me, which means one of three things: a) He is wrong; b) He is not intelligent; c) My dialogue with him has no legitimate basis, in which case I am humbly gracious for experiencing his superior intellect).

3) The Left cannot think (an action he has not defined; he has “described” a “basis” for what it is “in a political context”, all the while saying the Left is the group who discusses "ideas" as opposed to ideas).

4) The Left has contempt for those who lack what it “inaccurately” defines as “intellect” (whereas Mr. Frisk clearly disapproves only of those who really lack real intellect”).

It’s all clear now.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: