Hmm, I find it kind of disappointing if the reason is that she's a "bitch" (meaning a woman who acts like a man, basically).
Not to sidetrack, but thats not neccesarily what "bitch" means in this case - in fact I've never heard bitch used in that way.
As for hating on her because shes a woman - nonsense. There are people with genuine concerns on her actually ability to lead, and not be another CLINTON w/o any of the political savvy. No one is doubting that shes a smart woman, but as others say, she wants to be President - period. Not president to do X, but simply to be president. The fact of the matter is, the next American president is going to be a democrat, barring any late surge from conservatives (sorry Mitt but you aren't winning anything, and Rudy just doesn't excite like Hillary/Obama does) - and the clear front runners are an inexperienced state senator, and One half of the "Billy and Hill Show".
Not many people feel that way about Hillary, partially because of the right-wing character assasination that's already been carried out on her
Is it character assasination if its true?
partially because she's an assertive woman
She doesn't come off as assertive - just "powerful".
Basically the disparity between the people who just watched 9/11 and the people who also have some basic understanding of his entire history.
I imagine if he or Mitt win the primary (and he or Mitt choses the other as a running mate), the rest of the country will find out who Rudy is.
For reasons that are retarded, people like politicians who they feel they could be friends with. Not many people feel that way about Hillary, partially because of the right-wing character assasination that's already been carried out on her, partially because she's an assertive woman, and partially because she lacks sufficient personal charisma to overcome the first two factors.
I don't personally care if Hillary likes the Mets or the Yankees, nor do I care if she tried to dodge the question. I'm not planning on having a beer with her and watching the game: I care that she might be able to instate some form of universal health care, and I care that having a female president will have a positive cultural effect on the country. However, some people do care. I think I've made my opinion of them sufficiently clear by now.
Edit: Also, she gets a lot of flak on these forums for having gone after video games, which is, suprise suprise, a PA pet issue.
I think the trouble with her going after videogames isn't so much that she did it as that it was obvious pandering
Yes it is. Because that means you don't want others to be President, on account of their gender. Voting is a zero-sum choice, you can only pick one. If you pick on gender.... then you pick on gender.
I think the trouble with her going after videogames isn't so much that she did it as that it was obvious pandering
I've noticed that as well. To me, she seems no different than her male counterparts jockying for position (except Obama, maybe Dodd or Richardson). If she's elected, great, we've got a female president, but honestly, she's still a career politican - what changes? Probably not much i'm wagering.
Looking past her being a woman, and I just don't see much worthy of my vote, her being a fake is just icing on the cake.
Yes it is. Because that means you don't want others to be President, on account of their gender. Voting is a zero-sum choice, you can only pick one. If you pick on gender.... then you pick on gender.
Not voting for someone because of their sex makes you a ignorant sexist who's throwing your vote away. Voting for someone because of their sex means that you value improving gender relations more than you favour voting on the basis of certain proposed policies. The situations aren't comparable.
Yes it is. Because that means you don't want others to be President, on account of their gender. Voting is a zero-sum choice, you can only pick one. If you pick on gender.... then you pick on gender.
Not voting for someone because of their sex makes you a ignorant sexist who's throwing your vote away. Voting for someone because of their sex means that you value improving gender relations more than you favour voting on the basis of certain proposed policies. The situations aren't comparable.
So you consider their naughty bits to be more important than their policy? That the effectiveness or philosophical/political beliefs of the first female president is irrelevant in comparison to there simply being a first female president?
moniker on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Yes it is. Because that means you don't want others to be President, on account of their gender. Voting is a zero-sum choice, you can only pick one. If you pick on gender.... then you pick on gender.
Not voting for someone because of their sex makes you a ignorant sexist who's throwing your vote away. Voting for someone because of their sex means that you value improving gender relations more than you favour voting on the basis of certain proposed policies. The situations aren't comparable.
You're favoring one sex over the other. That's sexism, whatever your reasoning. You take the best person for the job no matter if there's a bump or a dip down there. Besides, if you're so interested in "first _____ President", there's all sorts of firsts in the field to pick from- first black, first woman, first Hispanic, first Mormon, etc. None of them should matter, but there you go.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
You're favoring one sex over the other. That's sexism, whatever your reasoning. You take the best person for the job no matter if there's a bump or a dip down there.
Hillary is a better president than a comparable man because a female president will affect a positive change on our culture: highly visible female leaders both provide role models for girls and normalize powerful women. This is something that Hillary can do that a man can't, by virtue of her gender.
If that's sexist, then all it means is that not all cases of sexism are bad.
Yes it is. Because that means you don't want others to be President, on account of their gender. Voting is a zero-sum choice, you can only pick one. If you pick on gender.... then you pick on gender.
Not voting for someone because of their sex makes you a ignorant sexist who's throwing your vote away. Voting for someone because of their sex means that you value improving gender relations more than you favour voting on the basis of certain proposed policies. The situations aren't comparable.
Not voting for a man because he is not female makes you a ignorant sexist who's throwing your vote away. Voting for a man because he is not female means that you value improving gender relations more than you favour voting on the basis of certain proposed policies. The situations aren't comparable.
I know several people have already disagreed with your statement, but I just thought I would hammer home the fact it makes no sense.
Scikar on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I think the trouble with her going after videogames isn't so much that she did it as that it was obvious pandering
So, because you do not share the concerns of the portion of voters she was addressing, it's pandering. I don't agree with her stance on the issue, but you're using prejudicial language to support your point that you don't like her--which sure seems awfully circular.
You're favoring one sex over the other. That's sexism, whatever your reasoning. You take the best person for the job no matter if there's a bump or a dip down there.
Hillary will be a better president for the country than a comparable man because a female president will affect a positive change on our culture: highly visible female leaders both provide role models for girls and normalize powerful women. This is something that Hillary can do that a man can't, by virtue of her gender.
Only if she does a good job at it. Imagine if Bush had been the exact same as he is now only he was, as his name suggests, a woman. Would that have been a positive change on the culture, or a means of reinforcing negative stereotypes over women being ineffective and stubborn/moody when occupying places of power? Hillary is not the best person for the job and is hardly going to be a uniting force during this very polarized time. Her being a woman does not overcome those issues alone, and by not overcoming those issues it acts against your primary positive.
Besides it isn't as though Obama or Richardson (two people who are far less a part of the establishment mold) would break the norm on their own right with regards to race relations. All else equal, racism and sexism being combatted wold be equally valuable things to combat. Since everything else isn't equal, I'll go with the guy who'll help further tear down racist walls and isn't a pandering jackass rather than the gal who'll help further tear down sexist walls, but is.
moniker on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Since everything else isn't equal, I'll go with the guy who'll help further tear down racist walls and isn't a pandering jackass rather than the gal who'll help further tear down sexist walls, but is.
Well, I think Hillary would do better that you would--but that aside, we agree that considering a candidate's race or gender is legitimate.
I think the trouble with her going after videogames isn't so much that she did it as that it was obvious pandering
So, because you do not share the concerns of the portion of voters she was addressing, it's pandering. I don't agree with her stance on the issue, but you're using prejudicial language to support your point that you don't like her--which sure seems awfully circular.
Pandering is giving the people what they want, because it is politically opportunistic or desireable, rather than giving them what they actually need, which might either anger them or simply not endear you to them quite as much. Anyone with a functioning brain realizes that videogames are to blame in an equal capacity as movies are. Movies act under a voluntary regulation system governed by the MPAA, videogames act under a voluntary regulation system goverened by the ESRB. She wasn't applying the same standard to them both nor was she actually trying to improve the situation of youths accessing material which they should not be able to get. Let alone addressing the inherent issues that attempted prohibition always carries with it. She was scaremongering and scapegoating some people, not actually addressing the concerns of a particular portion of voters. That's pandering.
Since everything else isn't equal, I'll go with the guy who'll help further tear down racist walls and isn't a pandering jackass rather than the gal who'll help further tear down sexist walls, but is.
Well, I think Hillary would do better that you would--but that aside, we agree that considering a candidate's race or gender is legitimate.
I'm not running so that's moot. And no, I don't consider a candidate's race to be a legitimate issue, all things concerned. However, you do so I was responding under that outlook. Mainly in an attempt to point out that the faults being levelled against her still hold true and should undermine support for Hillary, adam's apple or no. Afterall, if you want a woman to be president you should want the best woman possible to fulfill that position. Particularly if she's going to be the first one in history. A good and effective woman president > a meh woman president. Chiefly because a good and effective president > a meh president.
Well, she could be just plain stupid and actually believe that video games are to blame.
The 'solutions' she had proffered where in no way actually going to improve anything. Bluster and rhetoric without meaningful action or deliberative attempts at producing a good program are signs of pandering. If you still don't consider it to be that, then it at least undermines her stance as someone who can 'get things done' since she apparently couldn't get shit done in that regard. Thank god.
You're favoring one sex over the other. That's sexism, whatever your reasoning. You take the best person for the job no matter if there's a bump or a dip down there.
Hillary is a better president than a comparable man because a female president will affect a positive change on our culture: highly visible female leaders both provide role models for girls and normalize powerful women. This is something that Hillary can do that a man can't, by virtue of her gender.
If that's sexist, then all it means is that not all cases of sexism are bad.
I don't see gender. Or race.
I'm gender-blind. You're all androgynous mulatt[o/a]s to me.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
if you want a woman to be president you should want the best woman possible to fulfill that position.
Does the first woman president have to be perfect? If you think so, then I would argue that you're applying a standard that's neither fair nor particularly rooted in reality. There are no perfect presidents, and the sooner that we start having female presidents (flaws and all), the sooner female politicians will be normalized and it will cease to be much of an issue. Furthermore, the sooner female politicians are normalized, the better the effect on our country.
Obviously, this doesn't mean that we should elect Jane Doe--this sort of concern doesn't trump every other issue. However, it is still a legitimate concern, and one asset among many a president could posess.
Since everything else isn't equal, I'll go with the guy who'll help further tear down racist walls and isn't a pandering jackass rather than the gal who'll help further tear down sexist walls, but is.
Well, I think Hillary would do better that you would--but that aside, we agree that considering a candidate's race or gender is legitimate.
I think both of these views are missing the point entirely. You should not vote for either of these candidates just because they are women or their race. It's demeaning to refer to Obama as the "black candidate" or Hilary as the "woman candidate" if you are going to vote for them vote because you believe in their policies. I plan to vote for Obama because I feel he is idealistic, has a border policy I support (go after the companies that encourage illegal immigrates instead of blaming the immigrants), and I feel like the political system has not totally corrupted him yet. (I.E. he is young) If you really think that this will change American culture positively you must first think why do you see them as a minority instead of a candidate first? Look at it like this, a lot of average white American males hate affirmative action because they think it gives a minority of people more of an advantage then the majority of the people. Right or wrong this is what some people think. So voting for a minority candidate because they are a minority really marginalizes them and people might feel they only won it because they were "different" not a great change for American culture IMHO.
if you want a woman to be president you should want the best woman possible to fulfill that position.
Does the first woman president have to be perfect?
No. I didn't claim that she had to be nor did I ask for her to be. However, Hillary is the last person who should be getting the nod on account of her characteristics and positions. I don't know what to label that as, but it's the polar opposite of 'best' and 'perfect.' She's the front runner because of her sex, her name, and her connections to money. None of those assets are in any way endearing or positive to begin with. Her policies are the deathknell for the deal.
You're favoring one sex over the other. That's sexism, whatever your reasoning. You take the best person for the job no matter if there's a bump or a dip down there.
Hillary is a better president than a comparable man because a female president will affect a positive change on our culture: highly visible female leaders both provide role models for girls and normalize powerful women. This is something that Hillary can do that a man can't, by virtue of her gender.
If that's sexist, then all it means is that not all cases of sexism are bad.
That is not even close to the function of a President.
You're favoring one sex over the other. That's sexism, whatever your reasoning. You take the best person for the job no matter if there's a bump or a dip down there.
Hillary is a better president than a comparable man because a female president will affect a positive change on our culture: highly visible female leaders both provide role models for girls and normalize powerful women. This is something that Hillary can do that a man can't, by virtue of her gender.
If that's sexist, then all it means is that not all cases of sexism are bad.
That is not even close to the function of a President.
Presidents and their families are cultural forces. The Fords brought about a greater acceptance towards drug and alcohol abuse thanks to Betty. Jackie symbolized the mourning nation and how best to carry on after the assassination, &c. (I can't think of better examples off the top of my head).
Yes it is. Because that means you don't want others to be President, on account of their gender. Voting is a zero-sum choice, you can only pick one. If you pick on gender.... then you pick on gender.
Not voting for someone because of their sex makes you a ignorant sexist who's throwing your vote away. Voting for someone because of their sex means that you value improving gender relations more than you favour voting on the basis of certain proposed policies. The situations aren't comparable.
You're favoring one sex over the other. That's sexism, whatever your reasoning. You take the best person for the job no matter if there's a bump or a dip down there. Besides, if you're so interested in "first _____ President", there's all sorts of firsts in the field to pick from- first black, first woman, first Hispanic, first Mormon, etc. None of them should matter, but there you go.
It's not sexism. Anyone swayed to vote for Hilary because she's a woman isn't doing so because of the innate fact that she's a woman; they're doing it because they think it will have a positive effect on gender relations.
Yes it is. Because that means you don't want others to be President, on account of their gender. Voting is a zero-sum choice, you can only pick one. If you pick on gender.... then you pick on gender.
Not voting for someone because of their sex makes you a ignorant sexist who's throwing your vote away. Voting for someone because of their sex means that you value improving gender relations more than you favour voting on the basis of certain proposed policies. The situations aren't comparable.
You're favoring one sex over the other. That's sexism, whatever your reasoning. You take the best person for the job no matter if there's a bump or a dip down there. Besides, if you're so interested in "first _____ President", there's all sorts of firsts in the field to pick from- first black, first woman, first Hispanic, first Mormon, etc. None of them should matter, but there you go.
It's not sexism. Anyone swayed to vote for Hilary because she's a woman isn't doing so because of the innate fact that she's a woman; they're doing it because they think it will have a positive effect on gender relations.
Yes it is. Because that means you don't want others to be President, on account of their gender. Voting is a zero-sum choice, you can only pick one. If you pick on gender.... then you pick on gender.
Not voting for someone because of their sex makes you a ignorant sexist who's throwing your vote away. Voting for someone because of their sex means that you value improving gender relations more than you favour voting on the basis of certain proposed policies. The situations aren't comparable.
You're favoring one sex over the other. That's sexism, whatever your reasoning. You take the best person for the job no matter if there's a bump or a dip down there. Besides, if you're so interested in "first _____ President", there's all sorts of firsts in the field to pick from- first black, first woman, first Hispanic, first Mormon, etc. None of them should matter, but there you go.
It's not sexism. Anyone swayed to vote for Hilary because she's a woman isn't doing so because of the innate fact that she's a woman; they're doing it because they think it will have a positive effect on gender relations.
Yes it is. Because that means you don't want others to be President, on account of their gender. Voting is a zero-sum choice, you can only pick one. If you pick on gender.... then you pick on gender.
Not voting for someone because of their sex makes you a ignorant sexist who's throwing your vote away. Voting for someone because of their sex means that you value improving gender relations more than you favour voting on the basis of certain proposed policies. The situations aren't comparable.
You're favoring one sex over the other. That's sexism, whatever your reasoning. You take the best person for the job no matter if there's a bump or a dip down there. Besides, if you're so interested in "first _____ President", there's all sorts of firsts in the field to pick from- first black, first woman, first Hispanic, first Mormon, etc. None of them should matter, but there you go.
It's not sexism. Anyone swayed to vote for Hilary because she's a woman isn't doing so because of the innate fact that she's a woman; they're doing it because they think it will have a positive effect on gender relations.
That's damnded impressive framing right there. Anyone who doesn't vote for Hillary solely because she's a woman is a misogynistic sexist, meanwhile anyone who does vote for Hillary solely because she's a woman is an enlightened feminist.
That's damnded impressive framing right there. Anyone who doesn't vote for Hillary solely because she's a woman is a misogynistic sexist, meanwhile anyone who does vote for Hillary solely because she's a woman is an enlightened feminist.
There are legitimate and illegitimate reasons to take gender into account. Depending on which you're using in your evaluations, you could either be sexist or not.
Yes it is. Because that means you don't want others to be President, on account of their gender. Voting is a zero-sum choice, you can only pick one. If you pick on gender.... then you pick on gender.
Not voting for someone because of their sex makes you a ignorant sexist who's throwing your vote away. Voting for someone because of their sex means that you value improving gender relations more than you favour voting on the basis of certain proposed policies. The situations aren't comparable.
You're favoring one sex over the other. That's sexism, whatever your reasoning. You take the best person for the job no matter if there's a bump or a dip down there. Besides, if you're so interested in "first _____ President", there's all sorts of firsts in the field to pick from- first black, first woman, first Hispanic, first Mormon, etc. None of them should matter, but there you go.
It's not sexism. Anyone swayed to vote for Hilary because she's a woman isn't doing so because of the innate fact that she's a woman; they're doing it because they think it will have a positive effect on gender relations.
...because of the innate fact that she's a woman.
Yes. That's how our society works.
Sorry, but voting for someone purely because they're born with* a certain set of genitalia is pretty much always** sexist.
That is different than taking into account someone's gender/sexual orientation/race/economic class/etc. as well as their stated agenda of legislative ideas and probable voting record.
* = I'm sure there are probably trans people out there running for office, but considering the historical and continued gender bias of our country, they're probably also few in number and subject to severe prejudice and discrimination
** = Context always matters. If someone's weighing two candidates, one male and one female, and is unable to get any reliable information about either's platform, then I don't think it's horribly unreasonable and sexist for that person to say "well, since women in our culture are oppressed, odds are the female candidate is more likely to have experienced or understand that oppression, and probably is more likely to vote and propose women-positive legislation than the male candidate who hasn't experience/understood that oppression."
That's damnded impressive framing right there. Anyone who doesn't vote for Hillary solely because she's a woman is a misogynistic sexist, meanwhile anyone who does vote for Hillary solely because she's a woman is an enlightened feminist.
..What the fuck? How on earth did you get that from what I said? All I've said is that factoring in someone's minority status as a positive when considering voting for them is entirely legitimate and neither sexist nor racist respectively.
That's damnded impressive framing right there. Anyone who doesn't vote for Hillary solely because she's a woman is a misogynistic sexist, meanwhile anyone who does vote for Hillary solely because she's a woman is an enlightened feminist.
..What the fuck? How on earth did you get that from what I said? All I've said is that factoring in someone's minority status as a positive when considering voting for them is entirely legitimate and neither sexist nor racist respectively.
Agree. No more sexist/racist than wanting to vote for Obama cause finally a brotha has a shot. . .
Oh wait. No it is. Theres no "good/bad" sexism/racism. It's all bad. Quota systems might work to pad colleges - but using it as a reason to vote for an unqualified candidate in the off-chance it'll increase womens pay is just - scary.
Now if you happen to think she IS the more qualified candidate and get to kill two-birds with one stone, fine. But voting for Hillary simply because she's a woman, and not bothering to really analyze what, if any, message she has -
Nobody is saying that they're going to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman nor are they saying that they're going to vote for Obama solely because he's black. Can we move on now? Cuz this is really retarded.
Posts
Not to sidetrack, but thats not neccesarily what "bitch" means in this case - in fact I've never heard bitch used in that way.
As for hating on her because shes a woman - nonsense. There are people with genuine concerns on her actually ability to lead, and not be another CLINTON w/o any of the political savvy. No one is doubting that shes a smart woman, but as others say, she wants to be President - period. Not president to do X, but simply to be president. The fact of the matter is, the next American president is going to be a democrat, barring any late surge from conservatives (sorry Mitt but you aren't winning anything, and Rudy just doesn't excite like Hillary/Obama does) - and the clear front runners are an inexperienced state senator, and One half of the "Billy and Hill Show".
Is it character assasination if its true?
She doesn't come off as assertive - just "powerful".
I imagine if he or Mitt win the primary (and he or Mitt choses the other as a running mate), the rest of the country will find out who Rudy is.
I think the trouble with her going after videogames isn't so much that she did it as that it was obvious pandering
- John Stuart Mill
No it isn't.
I've noticed that as well. To me, she seems no different than her male counterparts jockying for position (except Obama, maybe Dodd or Richardson). If she's elected, great, we've got a female president, but honestly, she's still a career politican - what changes? Probably not much i'm wagering.
Looking past her being a woman, and I just don't see much worthy of my vote, her being a fake is just icing on the cake.
Sexist!
Not voting for someone because of their sex makes you a ignorant sexist who's throwing your vote away. Voting for someone because of their sex means that you value improving gender relations more than you favour voting on the basis of certain proposed policies. The situations aren't comparable.
So you consider their naughty bits to be more important than their policy? That the effectiveness or philosophical/political beliefs of the first female president is irrelevant in comparison to there simply being a first female president?
Hillary is a better president than a comparable man because a female president will affect a positive change on our culture: highly visible female leaders both provide role models for girls and normalize powerful women. This is something that Hillary can do that a man can't, by virtue of her gender.
If that's sexist, then all it means is that not all cases of sexism are bad.
Not voting for a man because he is not female makes you a ignorant sexist who's throwing your vote away. Voting for a man because he is not female means that you value improving gender relations more than you favour voting on the basis of certain proposed policies. The situations aren't comparable.
I know several people have already disagreed with your statement, but I just thought I would hammer home the fact it makes no sense.
So, because you do not share the concerns of the portion of voters she was addressing, it's pandering. I don't agree with her stance on the issue, but you're using prejudicial language to support your point that you don't like her--which sure seems awfully circular.
Only if she does a good job at it. Imagine if Bush had been the exact same as he is now only he was, as his name suggests, a woman. Would that have been a positive change on the culture, or a means of reinforcing negative stereotypes over women being ineffective and stubborn/moody when occupying places of power? Hillary is not the best person for the job and is hardly going to be a uniting force during this very polarized time. Her being a woman does not overcome those issues alone, and by not overcoming those issues it acts against your primary positive.
Besides it isn't as though Obama or Richardson (two people who are far less a part of the establishment mold) would break the norm on their own right with regards to race relations. All else equal, racism and sexism being combatted wold be equally valuable things to combat. Since everything else isn't equal, I'll go with the guy who'll help further tear down racist walls and isn't a pandering jackass rather than the gal who'll help further tear down sexist walls, but is.
Well, I think Hillary would do better that you would--but that aside, we agree that considering a candidate's race or gender is legitimate.
Pandering is giving the people what they want, because it is politically opportunistic or desireable, rather than giving them what they actually need, which might either anger them or simply not endear you to them quite as much. Anyone with a functioning brain realizes that videogames are to blame in an equal capacity as movies are. Movies act under a voluntary regulation system governed by the MPAA, videogames act under a voluntary regulation system goverened by the ESRB. She wasn't applying the same standard to them both nor was she actually trying to improve the situation of youths accessing material which they should not be able to get. Let alone addressing the inherent issues that attempted prohibition always carries with it. She was scaremongering and scapegoating some people, not actually addressing the concerns of a particular portion of voters. That's pandering.
I'm not running so that's moot. And no, I don't consider a candidate's race to be a legitimate issue, all things concerned. However, you do so I was responding under that outlook. Mainly in an attempt to point out that the faults being levelled against her still hold true and should undermine support for Hillary, adam's apple or no. Afterall, if you want a woman to be president you should want the best woman possible to fulfill that position. Particularly if she's going to be the first one in history. A good and effective woman president > a meh woman president. Chiefly because a good and effective president > a meh president.
The 'solutions' she had proffered where in no way actually going to improve anything. Bluster and rhetoric without meaningful action or deliberative attempts at producing a good program are signs of pandering. If you still don't consider it to be that, then it at least undermines her stance as someone who can 'get things done' since she apparently couldn't get shit done in that regard. Thank god.
I don't see gender. Or race.
I'm gender-blind. You're all androgynous mulatt[o/a]s to me.
Then you are entirely unlike the rest of the country, if sociology is to be at all believed.
Does the first woman president have to be perfect? If you think so, then I would argue that you're applying a standard that's neither fair nor particularly rooted in reality. There are no perfect presidents, and the sooner that we start having female presidents (flaws and all), the sooner female politicians will be normalized and it will cease to be much of an issue. Furthermore, the sooner female politicians are normalized, the better the effect on our country.
Obviously, this doesn't mean that we should elect Jane Doe--this sort of concern doesn't trump every other issue. However, it is still a legitimate concern, and one asset among many a president could posess.
I think both of these views are missing the point entirely. You should not vote for either of these candidates just because they are women or their race. It's demeaning to refer to Obama as the "black candidate" or Hilary as the "woman candidate" if you are going to vote for them vote because you believe in their policies. I plan to vote for Obama because I feel he is idealistic, has a border policy I support (go after the companies that encourage illegal immigrates instead of blaming the immigrants), and I feel like the political system has not totally corrupted him yet. (I.E. he is young) If you really think that this will change American culture positively you must first think why do you see them as a minority instead of a candidate first? Look at it like this, a lot of average white American males hate affirmative action because they think it gives a minority of people more of an advantage then the majority of the people. Right or wrong this is what some people think. So voting for a minority candidate because they are a minority really marginalizes them and people might feel they only won it because they were "different" not a great change for American culture IMHO.
edited my lack of grammer
No. I didn't claim that she had to be nor did I ask for her to be. However, Hillary is the last person who should be getting the nod on account of her characteristics and positions. I don't know what to label that as, but it's the polar opposite of 'best' and 'perfect.' She's the front runner because of her sex, her name, and her connections to money. None of those assets are in any way endearing or positive to begin with. Her policies are the deathknell for the deal.
That is not even close to the function of a President.
Presidents and their families are cultural forces. The Fords brought about a greater acceptance towards drug and alcohol abuse thanks to Betty. Jackie symbolized the mourning nation and how best to carry on after the assassination, &c. (I can't think of better examples off the top of my head).
It's not sexism. Anyone swayed to vote for Hilary because she's a woman isn't doing so because of the innate fact that she's a woman; they're doing it because they think it will have a positive effect on gender relations.
Yes. That's how our society works.
That's damnded impressive framing right there. Anyone who doesn't vote for Hillary solely because she's a woman is a misogynistic sexist, meanwhile anyone who does vote for Hillary solely because she's a woman is an enlightened feminist.
Your "MrMister" name is entirely devoid of meaning to me.
There are legitimate and illegitimate reasons to take gender into account. Depending on which you're using in your evaluations, you could either be sexist or not.
Sorry, but voting for someone purely because they're born with* a certain set of genitalia is pretty much always** sexist.
That is different than taking into account someone's gender/sexual orientation/race/economic class/etc. as well as their stated agenda of legislative ideas and probable voting record.
* = I'm sure there are probably trans people out there running for office, but considering the historical and continued gender bias of our country, they're probably also few in number and subject to severe prejudice and discrimination
** = Context always matters. If someone's weighing two candidates, one male and one female, and is unable to get any reliable information about either's platform, then I don't think it's horribly unreasonable and sexist for that person to say "well, since women in our culture are oppressed, odds are the female candidate is more likely to have experienced or understand that oppression, and probably is more likely to vote and propose women-positive legislation than the male candidate who hasn't experience/understood that oppression."
..What the fuck? How on earth did you get that from what I said? All I've said is that factoring in someone's minority status as a positive when considering voting for them is entirely legitimate and neither sexist nor racist respectively.
Agree. No more sexist/racist than wanting to vote for Obama cause finally a brotha has a shot. . .
Oh wait. No it is. Theres no "good/bad" sexism/racism. It's all bad. Quota systems might work to pad colleges - but using it as a reason to vote for an unqualified candidate in the off-chance it'll increase womens pay is just - scary.
Now if you happen to think she IS the more qualified candidate and get to kill two-birds with one stone, fine. But voting for Hillary simply because she's a woman, and not bothering to really analyze what, if any, message she has -