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.
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.
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!)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
