Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-06-2016, 05:18 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
"Why women should vote for women."

I don't see a Clinton campaign thread around anywhere, so I thought I'd post this separately. (I can already see the direction of the opposing arguments...)

If you want to read this article, unless you're a subscriber to the L.A. Times Online, you'll need to do it by midnight PDT (possibly earlier; I'm not sure when they post the next day's articles). After the publication date, articles go to their archives, which are only accessible to subscribers.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...406-story.html

Happy reading.
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 04-06-2016, 05:21 PM
Frank Frank is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 20,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
If you want to read this article, unless you're a subscriber to the L.A. Times Online, you'll need to do it by midnight PDT (possibly earlier; I'm not sure when they post the next day's articles). After the publication date, articles go to their archives, which are only accessible to subscribers.
Umm, gee, thanks?

Some reason you can't give us the gist of the argument?
  #3  
Old 04-06-2016, 05:33 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
The most relevant piece of information is that research shows that women leaders advance women's issues legislatively three times as much as male leaders, as well as a recent and relevant anecdote from the fight over the ACA.
  #4  
Old 04-06-2016, 05:43 PM
Sherrerd Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,191
On why women don't have a strong history of supporting female candidates:

Quote:
Certainly part of the explanation is that women voters care about many issues, not just “women's issues.” Still, their aversion to explicitly advocating for themselves, I suspect, stems from fear of being labeled selfish. From childhood, women imbibe the notion that selfishness, like ambition, make them unlikable and untrustworthy.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...406-story.html

Not entirely implausible.
  #5  
Old 04-06-2016, 05:43 PM
Qin Shi Huangdi Qin Shi Huangdi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,054
Yes, I'm sure Michele Bachmann would have legislated in the interests of women far more then Barack Obama.
  #6  
Old 04-06-2016, 05:58 PM
Frank Frank is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 20,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
On why women don't have a strong history of supporting female candidates:
Well, I care about many issues, not just men's issues. I see no reason why I should be expected to vote for a candidate just because he's a man.
  #7  
Old 04-06-2016, 06:01 PM
Broomstick Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 25,395
While I'm all for voting for my fellow women I won't vote for someone just because they're a woman. I mean, I'm pretty sure Sarah Palin and I are 180 degrees apart on just about anything you care to name so it would be stupid for me to vote for her (or her for me, for that matter, not that that is likely to happen!)
  #8  
Old 04-06-2016, 06:04 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post
Well, I care about many issues, not just men's issues. I see no reason why I should be expected to vote for a candidate just because he's a man.
I'm just spitballing here, but maybe because you haven't been a marginalized gender? As another one, in many cases, still is by its opposite number.
  #9  
Old 04-06-2016, 06:13 PM
Frank Frank is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 20,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
I'm just spitballing here, but maybe because you haven't been a marginalized gender? As another one, in many cases, still is by its opposite number.
I don't get it. Women should vote for women because they're women, men should vote for women because they've been the marginalized gender. Is that it?

I'm going to vote for the person that I believe is the best person for the office, and I expect everyone else, no matter what gender they are, to do the same.
  #10  
Old 04-06-2016, 06:16 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post
I don't get it. Women should vote for women because they're women, men should vote for women because they've been the marginalized gender. Is that it?

I'm going to vote for the person that I believe is the best person for the office, and I expect everyone else, no matter what gender they are, to do the same.
I'm saying men in general don't 'get it' because in this society they've pretty much always been in power.

I'm NOT saying, as people seem to want to assume, that anyone should vote for a candidate solely based on sex. However, if I were a woman, it would certainly be a factor involved.

As for the Michelle Bachman hyperbole, I don't see her as a serious candidate for President in the 2016 general election.

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 04-06-2016 at 06:17 PM.
  #11  
Old 04-06-2016, 06:37 PM
Qin Shi Huangdi Qin Shi Huangdi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
I'm saying men in general don't 'get it' because in this society they've pretty much always been in power.

I'm NOT saying, as people seem to want to assume, that anyone should vote for a candidate solely based on sex. However, if I were a woman, it would certainly be a factor involved.

As for the Michelle Bachman hyperbole, I don't see her as a serious candidate for President in the 2016 general election.
That's just an evasion. My main point being, from a liberal perspective, which candidate will be more pro-woman-a serious liberal male candidate or a serious conservative female candidate? Feel free to substitute say Carly Fiorina (if in a nightmare world) she had actually become a major contender.
  #12  
Old 04-06-2016, 06:52 PM
Frank Frank is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 20,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
I'm saying men in general don't 'get it' because in this society they've pretty much always been in power.
And that's true, but I still don't get it. I think it's a mistake to start dividing political support due to gender, just as I think it's a mistake to due so by race, or because the candidate is from Utah, or any other such reason. Your political support should go to someone who agrees with your views.

When I voted for Sanders in the primary, I didn't vote for him because he's a man, I voted for him because his views most closely approximated mine. And when I vote for Clinton in November, it won't be because she's a woman, it will be because her views are closer to mine than the Republican candidate's views.

I don't think the Bachmann comment was hyperbole at all. Should a Republican woman vote for Bachmann in the primary because she's the only Republican woman running for President in 2012? Or should she vote for someone whose views more closely approximate hers?
  #13  
Old 04-06-2016, 07:03 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi View Post
That's just an evasion. My main point being, from a liberal perspective, which candidate will be more pro-woman-a serious liberal male candidate or a serious conservative female candidate? Feel free to substitute say Carly Fiorina (if in a nightmare world) she had actually become a major contender.
What evasion? You were using an extreme case to try to invalidate my point. And I contradicted yours as extreme.

As to your subsequent question, I would probably bet on the conservative woman generally being more pro-woman, unless she's of the brainwashed bent, because she's had the actual experiences, whereas the male liberal candidate may be sympathetic but just doesn't have the same feel. (Note that this is based on what they really think and how they use that, not what they mouth to get or stay in office.) I don't think being a conservative would necessarily prevent a woman from offering up female-issue legislation, any more than being a liberal would cause the man to do the same. I won't use extreme cases because they are very seldom illustrative.
  #14  
Old 04-06-2016, 07:15 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post
And that's true, but I still don't get it. I think it's a mistake to start dividing political support due to gender, just as I think it's a mistake to due so by race, or because the candidate is from Utah, or any other such reason. Your political support should go to someone who agrees with your views.
And I think it's a mistake to assume that women are the same as men. There is the reality that women do not process, feel, act, or deal with the world in the same ways as men do. And that has practical impact, not only on their lives but on how to attract them as voters.

Quote:
When I voted for Sanders in the primary, I didn't vote for him because he's a man, I voted for him because his views most closely approximated mine. And when I vote for Clinton in November, it won't be because she's a woman, it will be because her views are closer to mine than the Republican candidate's views.
Maybe to some women, voting on sex is more important than it is to you. For more than just superficial reasons, such as symbolically breaking the 'glass ceiling' again, getting someone who they may see as 'one of their own' who could be a better advocate for them specifically, etc. Again, that doesn't mean it's the only or even the overriding factor in voting, but that it has weight in the thought process, and quite possibly more than you give it.

Quote:
I don't think the Bachmann comment was hyperbole at all. Should a Republican woman vote for Bachmann in the primary because she's the only Republican woman running for President in 2012? Or should she vote for someone whose views more closely approximate hers?
I don't know. You'd have to ask her. Maybe her views are close enough to Bachmann's that gender is the factor that puts Bachmann over the top as far as her vote is concerned. If not, then she'll likely vote for someone else, at least if she's a relatively world-wise individual.
  #15  
Old 04-06-2016, 07:16 PM
Broomstick Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 25,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi View Post
That's just an evasion. My main point being, from a liberal perspective, which candidate will be more pro-woman-a serious liberal male candidate or a serious conservative female candidate? Feel free to substitute say Carly Fiorina (if in a nightmare world) she had actually become a major contender.
The problem is that a "serious conservative female candidate" might well be anti-abortion (I'm pro-choice), advocate prayer in school (I'm opposed), and be anti-single-payer-universal-health-coverage (I'm for it).

If there is a "serious liberal male candidate" who is pro-choice, insistent on separating church and state, and is pro-universal health coverage I'm voting for him.

Just a few examples there.
  #16  
Old 04-06-2016, 07:19 PM
Qin Shi Huangdi Qin Shi Huangdi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
The problem is that a "serious conservative female candidate" might well be anti-abortion (I'm pro-choice), advocate prayer in school (I'm opposed), and be anti-single-payer-universal-health-coverage (I'm for it).

If there is a "serious liberal male candidate" who is pro-choice, insistent on separating church and state, and is pro-universal health coverage I'm voting for him.

Just a few examples there.
That was what I was getting at. While I think gender, race, career background etc. might affect the focus of a candidate, the stances a candidate will take is determined by his or her ideology.
  #17  
Old 04-06-2016, 07:35 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi View Post
That was what I was getting at. While I think gender, race, career background etc. might affect the focus of a candidate, the stances a candidate will take is determined by his or her ideology.
Thing is, on the Democratic side, Bernie and Hillary aren't all that far apart as far as policies are concerned. I'd be willing to bet there are a fair number of women for whom gender is the 'defining' factor.

And I'm talking about the obverse; women voting for a candidate, not the candidate him/herself.

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 04-06-2016 at 07:37 PM.
  #18  
Old 04-06-2016, 07:52 PM
Drunky Smurf Drunky Smurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Smurf Village.
Posts: 10,598
This is why I voted for McCain/Palin. Because I care about womens issues because I actually love my mom and sisters.
  #19  
Old 04-06-2016, 08:00 PM
purplehearingaid purplehearingaid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,675
I am not about to vote for Hillary b/c she is a woman! Any women that does shame on them ! And just b/c a candidate is a woman doesn't mean she supports the thing issues that I do .
  #20  
Old 04-06-2016, 08:06 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplehearingaid View Post
I am not about to vote for Hillary b/c she is a woman! Any women that does shame on them ! And just b/c a candidate is a woman doesn't mean she supports the thing issues that I do .
OK, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you're a woman. (I really don't know whether you are or not.)

Now you have candidate A and candidate B. Their policy stands, experience, gravitas, etc. are all equal. The only difference is that candidate A is a woman and candidate B is a man. Who would you vote for?

(Btw, you don't have the experience of someone else to be able to judge them on their choices...so shame on you for being overly judgmental.)
  #21  
Old 04-06-2016, 09:32 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,218
Frank, maybe you can help me out with a question I don't have an answer for.

Every minority of every stripe has historically voted preferentially for candidates who belonged to their minority, presumably because, as also demonstrated historically, those candidates in office are more aware of issues that are specific to that minority - or at least exacerbated by being a minority - and advocate policies which alleviate those problems. Consequently, those minorities have historically been vocal in their preference toward and allegiance to minority candidates of their type.

The only exception I know to this overwhelming historic trend of vocal preference has occurred recently in the minority of white, male, straight Christians - even though white, male, straight Christians have demonstrably benefited hugely by the preferential policies toward themselves voted on by white, male, straight Christian politicians.

No doubt exists as to the high correlation of membership in a grouping and policies that specifically aid that grouping. (High correlation, of course, means that perfect correlation doesn't occur; i.e. there are exceptions.) So why do white, male, straight Christians presumably straightfacely deny this obvious and long-standing (dating to the very founding of the Constitution) behavior?
  #22  
Old 04-06-2016, 09:36 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
. . . Now you have candidate A and candidate B. Their policy stands, experience, gravitas, etc. are all equal. The only difference is that candidate A is a woman and candidate B is a man. Who would you vote for? . . .
If that is the only information I have, I'd vote for the woman, on the presumption that women are under-represented in elected office.

If I'm allowed to know what the distribution is in office, that might play a part. Are there any states in the U.S. where the majority of the legislature are women? (I'm betting not.)
  #23  
Old 04-06-2016, 10:24 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Frank, maybe you can help me out with a question I don't have an answer for.

Every minority of every stripe has historically voted preferentially for candidates who belonged to their minority, presumably because, as also demonstrated historically, those candidates in office are more aware of issues that are specific to that minority - or at least exacerbated by being a minority - and advocate policies which alleviate those problems. Consequently, those minorities have historically been vocal in their preference toward and allegiance to minority candidates of their type.

The only exception I know to this overwhelming historic trend of vocal preference has occurred recently in the minority of white, male, straight Christians - even though white, male, straight Christians have demonstrably benefited hugely by the preferential policies toward themselves voted on by white, male, straight Christian politicians.

No doubt exists as to the high correlation of membership in a grouping and policies that specifically aid that grouping. (High correlation, of course, means that perfect correlation doesn't occur; i.e. there are exceptions.) So why do white, male, straight Christians presumably straightfacely deny this obvious and long-standing (dating to the very founding of the Constitution) behavior?
I'm obviously not Frank, but my hypothesis would be that they realize that they have it good and don't want 'others' preempting their privilege. (I'm definitely an Adamsian on the Adams <----> Jefferson scale.)
  #24  
Old 04-06-2016, 10:43 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Frank, maybe you can help me out with a question I don't have an answer for.

Every minority of every stripe has historically voted preferentially for candidates who belonged to their minority, presumably because, as also demonstrated historically, those candidates in office are more aware of issues that are specific to that minority - or at least exacerbated by being a minority - and advocate policies which alleviate those problems. Consequently, those minorities have historically been vocal in their preference toward and allegiance to minority candidates of their type.

The only exception I know to this overwhelming historic trend of vocal preference has occurred recently in the minority of white, male, straight Christians - even though white, male, straight Christians have demonstrably benefited hugely by the preferential policies toward themselves voted on by white, male, straight Christian politicians.

No doubt exists as to the high correlation of membership in a grouping and policies that specifically aid that grouping. (High correlation, of course, means that perfect correlation doesn't occur; i.e. there are exceptions.) So why do white, male, straight Christians presumably straightfacely deny this obvious and long-standing (dating to the very founding of the Constitution) behavior?
Because in American politics, not all races or genders are considered equally laudable - in the sense of advocating for that race or gender.


"I am here to advocate on behalf of black people" = "A voice speaking for diversity, the underdogs, and for equality"

"I am here to advocate on behalf of white people" = "Racist, oppressive, promoting white-privilege."


Same thing with gender; someone who speaks out on behalf of women is going to be viewed differently than someone who advocates for the interests of men.
  #25  
Old 04-06-2016, 10:45 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,036
In 2008, it was much more acceptable to say that one was voting for Obama because he was black than it was for someone to say he was voting for McCain because he was white. That's just the nature of the game.
  #26  
Old 04-06-2016, 11:14 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Because in American politics, not all races or genders are considered equally laudable - in the sense of advocating for that race or gender.

"I am here to advocate on behalf of black people" = "A voice speaking for diversity, the underdogs, and for equality"

"I am here to advocate on behalf of white people" = "Racist, oppressive, promoting white-privilege."

Same thing with gender; someone who speaks out on behalf of women is going to be viewed differently than someone who advocates for the interests of men.
Good answer...that had never occurred to me.
  #27  
Old 04-07-2016, 12:32 AM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Thing is, on the Democratic side, Bernie and Hillary aren't all that far apart as far as policies are concerned.
Iraq, anyone? Hillary is less hawkish than most GOP types, but she's way too hawkish for me. One of the most important decisions a CiC can make is whether or not to go war. HRC has failed twice (Iraq and Libya) already. Give me Bernie on foreign policy any day. That's the thing a president can do all by him/herself. Passing legislation favorable to women... not so much.

Last edited by John Mace; 04-07-2016 at 12:33 AM.
  #28  
Old 04-07-2016, 12:39 AM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
I don't see a Clinton campaign thread around anywhere
Here are five right here.

Last edited by John Mace; 04-07-2016 at 12:41 AM.
  #29  
Old 04-07-2016, 02:56 AM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Iraq, anyone? Hillary is less hawkish than most GOP types, but she's way too hawkish for me. One of the most important decisions a CiC can make is whether or not to go war. HRC has failed twice (Iraq and Libya) already. Give me Bernie on foreign policy any day. That's the thing a president can do all by him/herself. Passing legislation favorable to women... not so much.
Funny, but I always thought it was the President (and, at least eventually, Congress) who went to war. The closest Hillary comes is one in 100 of one body.

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 04-07-2016 at 02:58 AM.
  #30  
Old 04-07-2016, 10:57 AM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Because in American politics, not all races or genders are considered equally laudable - in the sense of advocating for that race or gender.


"I am here to advocate on behalf of black people" = "A voice speaking for diversity, the underdogs, and for equality"

"I am here to advocate on behalf of white people" = "Racist, oppressive, promoting white-privilege."


Same thing with gender; someone who speaks out on behalf of women is going to be viewed differently than someone who advocates for the interests of men.
My point is not that white, male, straight Christians overtly claim that they vote for other white, male, straight Christian politicians. That would indeed look biased. What they do is deny that anyone of any minority should vote for someone of that minority just because they share that characteristic.

It's part of a larger issue. Whites are prone to denying that they are advantaged over people of color. Males normally refuse to acknowledge that women are held back. Straights commonly dismiss the concept of discrimination against gays. Christians want their freedom of religion while blocking that of other faiths, or atheists. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
  #31  
Old 04-07-2016, 11:14 AM
Frank Frank is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 20,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
My point is not that white, male, straight Christians overtly claim that they vote for other white, male, straight Christian politicians. That would indeed look biased. What they do is deny that anyone of any minority should vote for someone of that minority just because they share that characteristic.

It's part of a larger issue. Whites are prone to denying that they are advantaged over people of color. Males normally refuse to acknowledge that women are held back. Straights commonly dismiss the concept of discrimination against gays. Christians want their freedom of religion while blocking that of other faiths, or atheists. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
I'm not denying any of that, yet I still believe that people should vote for the candidates who best suit their views on the issues. A member of a minority who votes for a fellow member may very well be doing this, and I have no problem with that.

What I am arguing is that the simple fact that a candidate shares a gender, race, whatever with the vote is not, in and of itself, a reason to vote for that person. (The link in the OP is apparently arguing that it is.) If you've got (as posited above) Person A and Person B who are virtually identical other than gender, race, whatever, then sure, let that be your deciding point. Go nuts. But if you vote for someone whose views don't match yours simply because they are a member of the same group you are, then you're failing in your duty as an informed voter.
  #32  
Old 04-07-2016, 12:53 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 16,515
This issue has been addressed previously: "Women don't vote with the big head; they vote with the little hood."

Stranger
  #33  
Old 04-07-2016, 01:40 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post
I'm not denying any of that, yet I still believe that people should vote for the candidates who best suit their views on the issues. A member of a minority who votes for a fellow member may very well be doing this, and I have no problem with that.

What I am arguing is that the simple fact that a candidate shares a gender, race, whatever with the vote is not, in and of itself, a reason to vote for that person. (The link in the OP is apparently arguing that it is.) If you've got (as posited above) Person A and Person B who are virtually identical other than gender, race, whatever, then sure, let that be your deciding point. Go nuts. But if you vote for someone whose views don't match yours simply because they are a member of the same group you are, then you're failing in your duty as an informed voter.
Historically speaking, the odds are extremely high that a member of your minority will advocate for issues that are important to you. Johnny Ace cited this way back in post #3.

The position of white, male, straight Christians is that all other things being equal you can vote for anybody. The position of everybody else is that other things are never equal and pretending that kind of equality exists in this world benefits only white, male, straight Christians since all good things flow toward them without the special pleading required of everyone else.

If you are not a white, male, straight Christian you learn this in your bones because you encounter it every day of your lives, in an infinity of ways, subtle to blatant. If you are a white, male straight Christian it may become intellectually true but never viscerally crucial.

Everybody else knows that voting for a fellow minority is equivalent to voting for one's views unless specifically proven otherwise. Only white, male, straight Christians have the luxury of thinking otherwise.
  #34  
Old 04-07-2016, 02:16 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Historically speaking, the odds are extremely high that a member of your minority will advocate for issues that are important to you. Johnny Ace cited this way back in post #3.

The position of white, male, straight Christians is that all other things being equal you can vote for anybody. The position of everybody else is that other things are never equal and pretending that kind of equality exists in this world benefits only white, male, straight Christians since all good things flow toward them without the special pleading required of everyone else.

If you are not a white, male, straight Christian you learn this in your bones because you encounter it every day of your lives, in an infinity of ways, subtle to blatant. If you are a white, male straight Christian it may become intellectually true but never viscerally crucial.

Everybody else knows that voting for a fellow minority is equivalent to voting for one's views unless specifically proven otherwise. Only white, male, straight Christians have the luxury of thinking otherwise.
Very nicely articulated...a lot better than I did.

Of course, the irony for me is that I'm mostly a member of that group, except that I'm agnostic/atheist, which isn't superficially apparent.
  #35  
Old 04-07-2016, 02:35 PM
Sherrerd Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
My point is not that white, male, straight Christians overtly claim that they vote for other white, male, straight Christian politicians. That would indeed look biased. What they do is deny that anyone of any minority should vote for someone of that minority just because they share that characteristic.

It's part of a larger issue. Whites are prone to denying that they are advantaged over people of color. Males normally refuse to acknowledge that women are held back. Straights commonly dismiss the concept of discrimination against gays. Christians want their freedom of religion while blocking that of other faiths, or atheists. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
Yes. If you are at the top of the status-pyramid you have a vested interest in declaring that there IS no pyramid: 'it's a level playing field, and I got there based solely on my own talents and virtues!'

It's part of human nature to ascribe our success to our own efforts rather than to hereditary privilege. (And, handily, the same philosophy lets us dismiss the less advantaged as 'deserving whatever they get' due to not being hard-working enough, not having the correct cultural mores and values, not having made correct decisions, and so on.)


The article isn't saying 'women should vote for female candidates regardless of their views;' it's saying, basically: examine your biases, as you may be operating on unconscious biases against female candidates. There are plenty of women who are aware that they will please the men in their life better by declaring support for a male candidate, while vigorously denying that gender plays any role in that decision. Good girls don't put themselves--or other girls--forward; they know their place and are uncomfortable with females who violate the 'natural order.'

As an aside: Michelle Obama, an accomplished and intelligent attorney, knew better than to ever speak her mind on any matters of import outside the Female Realm, while First Lady. If she wanted to avoid ceaseless attacks, she had to be meticulous in sticking to "women's issues" only (kid's health, in her case). It may be the 21st century, but just as has been for two and a half centuries, no wise First Lady will put herself forward into matters that fall outside Woman's Role.

Only those at the very top of the status-pyramid (as you point out: white, male, straight Christians) genuinely believe that sexism (like racism and other demographically-based biases) doesn't exist. The rest of us may placate the WMSCs by agreeing 'it doesn't exist'---but in fact, we know better.

Last edited by Sherrerd; 04-07-2016 at 02:37 PM.
  #36  
Old 04-07-2016, 03:59 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Very nicely articulated...a lot better than I did.

Of course, the irony for me is that I'm mostly a member of that group, except that I'm agnostic/atheist, which isn't superficially apparent.
And yet because of that I bet that you notice far more acutely the level of references to and assumptions of the normality and default status of Christianity that fill the air.
  #37  
Old 04-07-2016, 04:09 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,036
People play up their disadvantages and play down their advantages.

They play up the "other side's" advantages and play down the "other side's" disadvantages.

Last edited by Velocity; 04-07-2016 at 04:09 PM.
  #38  
Old 04-07-2016, 04:15 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
And yet because of that I bet that you notice far more acutely the level of references to and assumptions of the normality and default status of Christianity that fill the air.
True, but it isn't generally something that's going to come up very often as far as prejudicial treatment is concerned, because you really have to get to know me to even discover it...and, unlike politics, it's not something that I bring up very often, unless it has some kind of specific application to the discussion.
  #39  
Old 04-07-2016, 04:52 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
On second thought, maybe I have experienced it in more conventional ways. Unlike a lot of those WMSC's, I grew up in a lower middle class, integrated area, ran with a diverse crowd of friends in childhood, and experienced reverse racism a lot in my first couple of years of high school. So I could be a bit more predisposed to see it in that way than the general run of WMSC's.
  #40  
Old 04-07-2016, 05:11 PM
stillownedbysetters stillownedbysetters is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,042
If Hilary is the eventual Demo candidate, I will vote for her for these reasons, in this order. 1 - She is the Democratic candidate and I'm a Democrat; 2 - She is a woman and this is a barrier we need to break, just as we broke the color barrier when Obama was elected.

I don't believe one's gender or color or ethnic origin in any way entitles you to be the winning candidate, but if serendipity ensues and the candidate is female or some other type of minority, I'd be happier to vote for this individual because it would also achieve a needed social goal. A nice, neat two-for-one deal.
  #41  
Old 04-07-2016, 07:26 PM
CCitizen CCitizen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,505
Everyone is free to vote for any candidate for any reason. Probably Hitlery will win this election. I am not going to advice women how to vote.

But as long as there is discrimination against men, men should look out for their interests. For those unfamiliar with discrimination:

-- There is very severe discrimination against male DV victims

-- Men are moderately discriminated in divorce cases

-- Male offenders get 63% more time for the same offences

-- Extreme male bashing is acceptable in Mainstream Media
  #42  
Old 04-07-2016, 07:58 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCitizen View Post
. . . -- Male offenders get 63% more time for the same offences . . .
Men commit more crimes than women, and thus have (on the average) a higher record of prior offenses. Does the statistic remain true if you normalize on the basis of prior offenses?
  #43  
Old 04-07-2016, 08:04 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCitizen View Post
Everyone is free to vote for any candidate for any reason. Probably Hitlery will win this election.
I stopped reading right there.

I knew at that point that anything you said past that would not only hold no interest, but would be completely uninformative.
  #44  
Old 04-07-2016, 10:06 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCitizen View Post
-- Extreme male bashing is acceptable in Mainstream Media
A) That's a blog post.
B) Mother Jones is utterly not part of the Mainstream Media.
C) The truth is an absolute defense against libel.
D) You think what you write here is acceptable. How do you justify that?
  #45  
Old 04-07-2016, 10:22 PM
CCitizen CCitizen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
You think what you write here is acceptable. How do you justify that?
Pointing out any discrimination and undeserved hate against anyone including the "privileged" gender has been acceptable since 1776. I can see nothing wrong with that.

Last edited by CCitizen; 04-07-2016 at 10:24 PM.
  #46  
Old 04-07-2016, 11:38 PM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Funny, but I always thought it was the President (and, at least eventually, Congress) who went to war.
Well, you can thank me for disabusing you of that ignorance! The constitution gives Congress that authority, not the president (despite some presidents ignoring that).

Quote:
The closest Hillary comes is one in 100 of one body.
That's a good point. No Senator should ever be held responsible for his or her votes.

Last edited by John Mace; 04-07-2016 at 11:40 PM.
  #47  
Old 04-07-2016, 11:50 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Well, you can thank me for disabusing you of that ignorance! The constitution gives Congress that authority, not the president (despite some presidents ignoring that).
Actually, you can thank me. I said 'went to war,' not 'declared war.'

http://www.infoplease.com/us/governm...-congress.html

Quote:
That's a good point. No Senator should ever be held responsible for his or her votes.
It's beyond disingenuous to claim that Hillary was the cause of a declaration of war made with 76 other Senators (77%-23%) and 297 Representatives (63%-37%). Nice try, though.

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 04-07-2016 at 11:50 PM.
  #48  
Old 04-08-2016, 02:48 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,064
The flip side of this argument is that men should vote for male candidates.
  #49  
Old 04-08-2016, 02:58 AM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 27,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
While I'm all for voting for my fellow women I won't vote for someone just because they're a woman. I mean, I'm pretty sure Sarah Palin and I are 180 degrees apart on just about anything you care to name so it would be stupid for me to vote for her (or her for me, for that matter, not that that is likely to happen!)
Why is that not likely to happen? As you point out, it would be stupid of her, but given that she IS stupid, perhaps it should be viewed as expected.
  #50  
Old 04-08-2016, 02:58 AM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
The flip side of this argument is that men should vote for male candidates.
/facepalm

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 04-08-2016 at 02:59 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017