What is a "Gender Card?" (I am really sick of the term)

Is it about trying to appeal to men or women specifically? If so, is that bad?

Is it about pointing out sexism?

Is it about countering sexism by leveraging gender for strength in some way?

Is it claiming unfair treatment based on gender, when no unfair treatment occurred?

What is it? Have you ever "played" this card? Has anyone at your workplace "played" it?

I think we need a fat card. I want a fat card!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

will hillary try that card too?

To take good white men's jobs.

I guess in your eyes the only way a Black person has a good job is if he took it from a white man? That mentality supports the idea that Blacks are de facto unqualified.

Is everyone on DU so sarcasm impaired we must, must use tags and cartoons to communicate even the most obvious remark?

Is this some sort of disability?

there are some people here who do make statements
like the one you posted. Seriously!

I had one guy tell me it was OK to make fun of my disabled
son. Yes, he was serious. And yes, even after writing the
Admins., he's still here.

I assume very little when it comes to DU, now.

"Is it claiming unfair treatment based on gender, when no unfair treatment occurred?"

It is simply like a woman sulking or crying to unduly gain sympathy and her way and is commonly pulled on guys. I would say it stops just short of sexism as she wasn't trying to bare shoulder or legs to gain her way. It is a childish thing women do when they know they are wrong, but still want it their way. To sum it up it's the victim act as in, oh poor me.

Sulking and crying to get their way, "pulling" this on guys?

Could you give me some anecdotal examples? I'm curious.

It's either that or you want to learn how to pull this kind of bullcrap yourself which still reinforces you don't get out much.

DSB

Your efforts to insult me aren't a good substitute. I'd like to understand what you're talking about.

Good job you do for hillary. Why don't you try some wisdom and get a good candidate. You know the ones that doesn't tell their people that by hook or crook get me elected, as they wouldn't need to do that if there was merit to the candidate.
Here I'll do this part for you and hillary.
BAWAWAW boo hoo poor me. They aren't allowed to disagree with me cause I'm a woman. Sounds like the same rhetoric we get from our idiotic war president. Hillary is her own worst enemy and to have supporters of your calibre is no surprise as she has little to run on with her record. She can't stand the heat now and there's more to come from the repukes. She certainly isn't strong enough in my opinion to be president.

Thanks anyway!

but why should I give them as it would only be you trying to flame any examples for that's all you hillary supporters seem to do is name call and degrade people because you are soooo victimized? It's equivalent to me having to say to you the world isn't flat, but you need examples and proof. There's no need for me to do so and is useless to do so when you'll believe whatever you want to anyhow. That wasn't you purpose here though as you try snowballing others with your vapor logic and your verbal strongarming.
Have a nice day in hillalalaland. Poor you.

for the discussion. I've not only become convinced that men are victims of a crying stunt women frequently "pull" on them, but I've also been enlightened about civil discourse through your shining examples!

:sarcasm:

:rofl:

Maybe a mirror would be helpful to assuage your curiosity.

But seriously - you know these sulking, whining women who "pull" this on guys, too?

Tell me about one from your workplace, for example. I really want to read an explanation.

I could never respond to an attack with such grace...

You have better control over your reptilian brain...

But attacks like this are just humorous to me. In the game of passive-aggression, it's not even checkers -- it's Candy Land.

Besides, I really want to see a full anecdotal explanation of this often-observed ploy that women apparently are using to victimize men. :shrug:

they are so mad at your OP!

You bring a great voice of sanity to what is rapidly becoming a flame fest over Hillary -- not your thread but so many others. But it is the emotion of the moment, so I tend to give folks a temporary pass given the tenor of our times. I don't put anyone Ignore, I just read or not read threads to see what folks have on their minds. As the old saw goes, "when all is said and done, more is said than done."

Always crying and sulking to get their way.

And you know, that is exactly how Hillary won the Senate. Remember? Crying onstage, sulking and pouting and they just handed her the seat so the whiny bitch would shut up already.

Women.

It is simply like a man to blame his hatred of women on the needy, damaged women he attracts due to his lack of maturity, and is commonly pulled on women.

To sum it up, it's the loser act, as in "oh, damn those strong women that call me on my bullshit".

Who wasn't a flaming privileged asshole.

:hi:

And if someone favors affirmative action that presupposes he or she believes we haven't achieved equality yet...

We all have it to some degree. I may be a queer, Pagan woman of color but I acknowledge that there are privileges that I enjoy over others because I am middle-class for the most part and am able-bodied.

I had my own consciousness raised by a friend I made at my last job who used a wheelchair. He opened my eyes to a lot of things that I took for granted and I changed some old habits as a result. For instance, I don't use the wheelchair access stalls in public restrooms anymore unless they're the only ones open.

for craven reasons, one would have to be either naive or dishonest.
peace,
mitchum

would do if someone played the RACE CARD. Which he is doing. We'd all be called racist..and dumped on...guess it doesn't pay to be a woman it's ok to flame them.

Only a minority can "play the race card." Only a woman can "play the gender card." When white people do it, it's just called "asking tough questions," or "refusing to go along with political correctness," or "just stating a fact," etc. - and when they're called on it, their immediate reaction is "You're playing the race card!!!" or, my all time favorite: "how DARE you call me a RACIST!!!!"

This sounds treacherously close to equating sexism with misogyny and justifying the marshalling of fellow women against it as a version of self-defense. Sexism comes in both flavors and different dosages. Sadly, those of downtrodden groups often grant themselves immunity from the general laws of comportment because of their victimhood.

When a male in the media poo-poohs women, there's generally a firestorm of outrage, but when self-congratulatory diversions like "The View" belittle men, it's no problem.

Sadly, hypocrisy is a VERY common human trait, and this is a cross-gender affliction. Most people are deeply irate that the rest of the world doesn't recognize their "specialness", and in many early conversations with new acquaintances, they just can't wait to point out how different they are than others, yet they have no compunction about dismissing most other people as mere cardboard cut-outs.

I deal with MANY people--new ones on a continual basis--in my life and profession, and most people have a bit of resentment about the other sex. There are a fair number of serious misogynists out there, but not more than the serious misandrists as far as I can see.

Sadly, people love their pain, and they love feeling put-upon and misunderstood. Even more sadly, it's a fine and handy all-purpose justification for deplorably selfish behavior and not taking responsibility for one's actions.

So, of your four points, 1, 3 and 4 are applicable.

What's worse is that it's a trump card. It's like religion: once you play it, it's a demand that all opposition cease because OBVIOUSLY the offender is guilty upon playing. It's a nasty attempt to label the recipient as unconscionable and unworthy of acceptance in civilization itself. Playing it is a form of hijacking discourse and demanding control because of some kind of presumed moral superiority.

Of course example number 4 is the classic usage, but that should be obvious.

That's the gender card.

Just like blacks are accused of playing the race card whenever they call bullshit.

It's one of the byproducts of institutional sexism and racism, which have become so ingrained in all aspects of our society that men and whites (and especially white men) are able to enjoy the privileges and advantages that come with their race and gender without ever having to affirmatively do anything to trigger it or ever even acknowledging it exists. The race and gender cards are played for them automatically.

Most women and minorities have excellent radar and are able to detect sexism and bigotry, even when they're not explicitly spelled out (since they doesn't have to be). Yet, when they call it out, they are often shouted down with cries of "You're Playing the RACE CARD!" "How DARE you try to play the GENDER card!!!"

I find it fascinating that for more than 240 years, America has not once elected a female president and until this year, no woman running for the office has been taken seriously as a real contender. That alone is evidence of gender bias in our society - America's been playing the gender card since the country was founded. And love her or hate her, Hillary Clinton is subjected to scrutiny, analysis and yes, bias, based upon her gender that her male counterparts are not faced with, much less expected to tolerate quietly. Yet when she or anyone points that out, they are criticized for "playing the gender card."

For example, we have been listening to all manner of white male pundits pontificating for months about whether Hillary can attract the female vote, whether America is ready to elect a woman, whether, as a woman, she's "tough" enough to be Commander-in-Chief, etc. They have no problem analyzing her gender, using it to measure up to her opponents, and dicussing it all they please. Yet if she even whispers, "I'm a woman," she's practically shouted down with screams and recriminations about her "playing the gender card."

Well, I call bullshit on that, too.

Best post yet on the topic.

Nail on the head, my friend.

Edited to add: :thumbsup:

At the top of the show, they had a discussion between Arianna Huffington and Dee Dee Myers on whether Hillary was "playing the gender card." In the lead up piece, Chuck Todd said (paraphrasing) "Her campaign is definitely playing the gender card to make it look like she's being picked on. Of course, she can't claim that herself because she's still trying to pass the 'Commander-in-Chief' test."

So, on the one hand, Chuck Todd - and many other pundits - feel perfectly comfortable saying that Hillary is "still trying pass the 'Commander in Chief test,'" - i.e., apply a standard to her that's clearly different because she's a woman - but when her campaign tries to use her gender either to counterbalance such gender-based negative perceptions or as a positive factor in her favor, THEY are "playing the gender card."

And, if anyone from Hillary's campaign called out Chuck Todd for applying a different standard to her or questioned the Today Show about why they even felt the need to devote a segment on wheher Hillary is "playing the gender card," guess what they would be accused of?

Bingo!

It can only be played one way.

It's crazy how all the difficulties of running as a woman are fair game, and any woman running for president is up against them -- so it's okay for gender to hurt a woman in a race. But drawing upon it as a strength -- appealing to women, expressing pride as a woman, referencing the "kitchen" etc. -- is subject to intense criticism.

The same thing happens to minorities. Obama, his campaign, his background, his family have endlessly scrutinized - usually by pundit panels of white folks - who sit around asking "is he black enough?" "is he too black?" "will white people vote for him?" "will black people vote for him?" "will being black hurt him with whites?" blah blah blah. But the minute HE says or does anything that indicates that he realizes he is a black man, he's attacked for - you guessed it - "playing the race card."

In my experience, the people who complain loudest about other people playing the race or gender card are usually people who are the most likely to hold someone's race or gender against them. They scream "race/gender card" because they don't like having their own biases called into question.

I think if we're going to talk about cards, we need a name for the card that's being played when people complain, "You're using the gender card!"

Why don't people talk about the white card, the male card, the Nascar Dad card, the southerner card, the Christian card, the bigot card, the tall card, the macho card, the veteran card, etc. etc.? Why is it only in the case of people who've traditionally been discriminated AGAINST that this fury of "cards" is unleashed, and accusations are made? Isn't that ironic?

WORDS have gender, PEOPLE have sex! (I know, I know - I'm fighting a losing battle: kids shouldn't be named Jayden or Sierra either, but when civilization collapses, civilization collapses!)

I admit I never heard anybody say, "That was the best gender I ever had!"

but now i do. :woohoo: