Did anyone hear the RESULTS of TOM HARTMANN'S telphone pole today----????

As a PS --- Listened to Hartmann today --- he had a telephone poll going ---
Anyone hear the results? I didn't --

But it sounded to me like about 30 phone calls?

And, 3 distinct votes for Hillary --- and I noted they were all females

LOTTSA votes for Edwards and Kucinich --- they lead in my estimation ---

1 for Gravel

Hillary seemed to lead Obama --- but both were way behind Edwards/Kucinich

Did Dodd get a vote?

Gore mentioned a few times . . . "if not Gore" then . . .

I think Biden got a vote or two?

But the Telephone Pole is alive and well, and standing about 45 feet into the cool air above the Sellwood neighborhood, and not far from the Willamette River in Portland Oregon ....

It's getting wet right now from cool, fluffy Northwest drizzle ....

Things get a little phonetic at times -- !!!

"and I noted they were all females"

The rest of the post is fine, but that one line makes me cringe.

When there is a telephone poll and all the call-ins for a candidate are men, do you "note" that? Or is that just the norm? When we have a panel of commentators on a show who are all men, it's not a "men's" show - it's just a show. But when we have a panel composed all of women, it's a "women's show" and something to be noted - even though women are most of the people in this country.

Also, it would sit better if you'd say "they were all women" - you know, like they are humans. Something about females as a noun is very dehumanizing. Even "they were all female" would be better, the adjective describing the implied noun: people. It's so rare that we say a bunch of people called in, and they were all males. We say men. They were all men. Or they were all male.

There was another post on DU not so long ago explaining that with more clarity than I just did, if anyone has the link to it, please post it. That first part bothered me more though. I bet there were other candidates with just males(!) calling in for support, but I bet nobody denigrates that in the same way.

I commented on it because I didn't notice any males voting for Hillary ---
Doesn't that mean anything?

I used "female" because it is the opposite of male . . . is it not?

Just as an aside . . . how is "female" . . . "dehumanizing" . . . ???
Does your driver's license application ask if you are "woman" --- ???
Or "female" . . . ???


Again --- I'm female --- and I connect with everything you're saying ---

This . . . I don't quite get ---

The way we hear things is different, always, depending on who we are, and what our experiences are.

I never hear about a group of "males" standing around - I hear about a group of men.

But I do hear about groups of "females" as if they are a separate species. And that's what I've seen others complain about as well, that female/male as an adjective to describe a person's gender, like on our driver's license, is one thing. Maybe not a necessary thing, but an adjective, all the same, which describes a person. But as a noun, it doesn't mean human, it can apply to all species. Like we are more connected to female dogs or apes than to human men.

It's that same uneasiness I get when I hear people referred to as "illegals" - as a noun, as if that's THE thing that defines them.

The first line of the wikipedia entry, which I'm using because it denotes popular meaning in some ways more than a dictionary, is "Female is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, which produces ova (egg cells)." You see how that's a slightly dehumanizing way to refer to a person?

Contrast that with: A woman is a female human.

This is from a book review on Amazon, which illustrates the point in some way - from a review of Play or Be Played: What Every Female Should Know About Men, Dating, and Relationships ... "The author, clearly a player in his own right, objectifies women throughout the book - even on the cover (refering to women as "females" while referring to men as the obvious, "men")."

There's a longer discussion in the comments (to be read from bottom up) here: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/woman-versus-female.aspx#Comments

This comment from that discussion was especially interesting: "I read through all of the commentary on this "Woman vs. Female" issue without seeing mention of my BIG problem. I'm not as concerned about "female" the adjective as I am about "female" the noun. I cringe when I hear "women" or "girls" referred to as "females," as in, "These females are crazy!" (Mark almost raised the issue and gave a good example in an earlier post: "I was talking to this female.") You noted that "male" and "female" are used in the sciences (or in agriculture) to refer to male or female animals. (The auctioneer at the state fair talks about the "female on the auction block.") Prior to the past 10 years or so, I didn't hear people refer to others as "a male" or "those females" unless it was in reference to the slave trade. Enslaved Africans (and later African Americans) were dehumanizingly referred to as "males" or "females" by inhuman types who treated treated them and traded them as they would animals."

We've had "funny" things happen to the words LIBERAL and FEMINIST and DEMOCRAT --
among many others -- not unusual for the right-wing to demonize identities and concepts.

The original concept is Man and Womb-man of the HUMAN species . . .

AND, it's very good to be conscious of these uses of language --- they are important.

With Wiki . . . I don't agree that females is "sex." Female is gender.
Nor do I think that we should use "sex" interchangeably with gender.

And, there is another problem with using "women" . . .
which was part of why I used "female" in my post ---
"Women" suggests someone of adult age -- not a teenager and not someone younger.

Also, I hope it is clear now that what I was conveying was that no males voted for Hillary,
if I heard correctly!

As long as the right-wing propaganda goes unchallenged, we will be more of a NEWSPEAK world --
on our way to 1984 --- which I think happened in 1980!!!

and when a caller mentions that Obama or another candidate holds the same position as Kucinich or Edwards, Hartmann gives only grudging acknowledgement of it.

It's no wonder Kucinich and Edwards always lead in his polls.

I listen every day, by podcast, and I am disappointed in how Hartmann gives the benefit of the doubt to Edwards on almost everything, but not to Obama.

The first few times the big winner was DK with Edwards the closest contender. The last few Edwards gained substantially. First lets look at the audience. Most of the Hartmann audience are committed progressives or at least committed to searching out intelligent discussion of important issues. That demographic would indicate the respondents are a small percentage of the population and would have no relationship to the nation as a whole.

What is interesting is the flip from the earlier straw polls between DK and Edwards. Why would that be? I can't read the minds of others, but I know how it works for me. DK is my best idealogical match and has a history of taking on a tough fight even when it might mean professional suicide. Edwards has a similar history, but made it work to set him up financially. I don't consider that a positive or negative factor. Without more detailed information, the only thing I can say is he played the game smarter. From a pragmatic viewpoint, I could understand support swinging from DK to Edwards. In reality we have to accept we are a small percentage of the population and don't have great influence. For the less informed and media influenced masses, Edwards is the most saleable candidate.

For me any of the Dem candidates are an order of magnitude better than the alternative, but I'll still be standing with my "best choice" till the GE.

:dunce: