# "Why women should vote for women." **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 6, 2016, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392 "2016-04-06T22:18:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2016, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/81 "2016-04-09T16:44:19Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > It’s not blinders. It’s the fact that the title is blatantly bigoted, and thus it becomes difficult to actually discuss the real topic they want to discuss. I don’t know why in the world they chose that title. > > The actual point is just that female politicians have historically been shown to do more about women’s issues than male politicians, and to stand up for women’s interests and not let them be pushed under the bus. It says that Clinton should be pointing this out, rather than just assuming every woman knows this. > > And that women should not be afraid to fight for their own issues. Don’t be worried about being accuses of being selfish over it. It’s okay to put yourselves first. > > Not once does it advocate for women voting for female candidates because they are women. But that’s exactly what the title says. ‘Blatantly bigoted?’ Really? Sorry, but feminism is NOT bigotry, no matter how you want to paint it. Let me guess…you’re a SWMC. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/82 "2016-04-09T16:54:29Z")
Regardless, it’s a waste of my time to answer the same old BS line of argument over and over again. At least use some creativity, ferchrissakes. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2016, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/83 "2016-04-09T17:02:39Z")
The article made an uninteresting yet unsurprising point that women politicians provide more support for what the author thinks are women’s issues. The rest of the article is political drivel of the kind used for any political issue, intended to creative division and get people to vote without thinking. Would I vote for someone like myself? Never came up because I’m the only one of my kind, but if I felt like I belonged to some group of people I’d probably feel like voting for someone from that group. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2016, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/84 "2016-04-09T17:07:55Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The article made an uninteresting yet unsurprising point that women politicians provide more support for what the author thinks are women’s issues. The rest of the article is political drivel of the kind used for any political issue, intended to creative division and get people to vote without thinking. > > Would I vote for someone like myself? Never came up because I’m the only one of my kind, but if I felt like I belonged to some group of people I’d probably feel like voting for someone from that group. Just wondering if you could possibly be any more condescending. Keywords: uninteresting _to you_. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2016, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/85 "2016-04-09T17:51:01Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The article made an uninteresting yet unsurprising point that women politicians provide more support for what the author thinks are women’s issues. The rest of the article is political drivel of the kind used for any political issue, intended to creative division and get people to vote without thinking. > > Would I vote for someone like myself? Never came up because I’m the only one of my kind, but if I felt like I belonged to some group of people I’d probably feel like voting for someone from that group. > [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Let me guess…you’re a SWMC. Too easy. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2016, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/86 "2016-04-09T23:21:14Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Of those 114 candidates, 113 were white, male, straight Christians. Actually, there have long been rumors about James Buchanan, who was a life-long bachelor. Of course, at the time there is no question that even if he had homosexual leanings he would never had made any public (or possibly even private) mention of them. > [@](#): > > Look at the composition of City governments today, with persons of color dominating in many cities with high non-white populations. Then you get someone like Scott King, who was elected mayor of Gary, Indiana in 1996 and held that office 10 years. For those who don’t know, Gary, Indiana is 85% black and hadn’t had a white guy in the mayor’s office since 1967. After all that time, with entrenched interests and all, the white guy was seen as the unconnected outsider to what was then the established government. Which is an interesting twist on the whole minority issue. (we’re back to black mayors - the last two have been of African descent, which, given the demographics of the city, isn’t too surprising. Most candidates for government office in Gary are black.) > [@](#): > > Woman are now catching up. Of course, I expect some of the more blinkered white, male, straight Christians to scream as their dream world is eaten away a bit more. The rest might agree that it’s way past time. ^ Agreed. I just don’t want to see a situation where past transgressions are used as a pretext to oppress future generations. That just prolongs the problem. I want an end to it. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2016, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/87 "2016-04-10T22:24:53Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Woman are being used as the example because Hillary Clinton is running for President. Because this is the very first time women have had any chance of voting for a woman in a major party. This will be the 58th Presidential election. The previous 114 candidates (more, really - some years had more than two) have been men. Can that be correlated with the length of time it took for woman’s issues to be even partially recognized? Yes, certainly. > > Of those 114 candidates, 113 were white, male, straight Christians. Can that be correlated with the length of time it took for non-white or gay or non-Christian issues to be even partially recognized? Yes, certainly. > > Woman this year are faced with a choice that is new only at the Presidential level. More and more woman have been elected at lower levels, although gender parity is still far off. That goal is likely to happen. As I said earlier, this is a historic trend for all types of minorities and outsiders. Think of the gains made by the Irish and Italians once they started overturning the patrician Anglo-Saxons in city government. Look at the composition of City governments today, with persons of color dominating in many cities with high non-white populations. > > Gains have been made whenever and wherever people who understood minority issues were put into power by minorities. It’s been a centuries-long battle against the white, male, straight Christian default privilege. They made the rules, formed the culture, and limited, infantiled, and marginalized everyone else. (Remember that in the 19th century Catholics were not considered truly Christian. The Irish were Catholics and not OK. The Scots-Irish were OK, though. Why? Scots-Irish was a code for Protestant.) > > Woman are now catching up. Of course, I expect some of the more blinkered white, male, straight Christians to scream as their dream world is eaten away a bit more. The rest might agree that it’s way past time. Detroit had forty years of having a black mayor. How did that work out for the black mayor? What you are proposing is a double standard. If a white person votes for someone because they are white that is wrong but a black person voting for someone because they are black is alright. Same with men voting for men, straights voting for straights, and cisgenders voting for cisgenders. Those are all wrong but women voting for women, gays voting for gays, and transgenders voting for transgenders. These are blatant double standards. Double standards are not stable in the long run. The norm that voting as an individual is best is stable. The norm that voting as a bloc is best is also stable. However, if people start to see that everyone else votes as a bloc and they don’t and they are subsequently losing out, then they won’t like that. If that happens then the switch will go back to voting for their identity. And since 75% of the population is white, 97% is straight, and 99.5% is cisgender that will not work out well for those groups. Voting for the individual is not only best for recognizing our common humanity but also in the long term best interest of minorities. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2016, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/88 "2016-04-10T22:48:42Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Detroit had forty years of having a black mayor. How did that work out for the black mayor? > What you are proposing is a double standard. If a white person votes for someone because they are white that is wrong but a black person voting for someone because they are black is alright. Same with men voting for men, straights voting for straights, and cisgenders voting for cisgenders. Those are all wrong but women voting for women, gays voting for gays, and transgenders voting for transgenders. These are blatant double standards. Double standards are not stable in the long run. > The norm that voting as an individual is best is stable. The norm that voting as a bloc is best is also stable. However, if people start to see that everyone else votes as a bloc and they don’t and they are subsequently losing out, then they won’t like that. If that happens then the switch will go back to voting for their identity. And since 75% of the population is white, 97% is straight, and 99.5% is cisgender that will not work out well for those groups. > Voting for the individual is not only best for recognizing our common humanity but also in the long term best interest of minorities. That’s a nice, fuzzy theory, but it fails in the crucible of reality. Perhaps in a century or two, when most people are able to live without racial/sexual/gender prejudice. And don’t delude yourself, the most progressive of people still have some prejudices along those lines, even if they consciously choose to ignore them. Until then, in the absence of action otherwise, it’s status quo city. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/89 "2016-04-11T02:24:25Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Detroit had forty years of having a black mayor. How did that work out for the black mayor? And Kansas has a white governor. How is that working out? Hey, what about the white governor of Michigan? Or the legislatures in North Carolina, and Georgia, and Tennessee, and… Or Congress. Republicans control both houses. How many black Republicans are there? How is Congress working out? > [@](#): > > What you are proposing is a double standard. Well, no. What I am saying is reality. Kansans wanted a governor with an insane theory about how government worked because they thought it would benefit them. Any minority could tell them that it wouldn’t because the lack of government priority had been used against them for so many years. Gay-hating straights are passing ignorant and unenforceable laws against LGBTs because that’s how they think. LGBTs would have to be insane themselves to think those people understand their issues. > [@](#): > > If a white person votes for someone because they are white that is wrong but a black person voting for someone because they are black is alright. Same with men voting for men, straights voting for straights, and cisgenders voting for cisgenders. Those are all wrong but women voting for women, gays voting for gays, and transgenders voting for transgenders. These are blatant double standards. Double standards are not stable in the long run. > > The norm that voting as an individual is best is stable. The norm that voting as a bloc is best is also stable. However, if people start to see that everyone else votes as a bloc and they don’t and they are subsequently losing out, then they won’t like that. If that happens then the switch will go back to voting for their identity. And since 75% of the population is white, 97% is straight, and 99.5% is cisgender that will not work out well for those groups. > Voting for the individual is not only best for recognizing our common humanity but also in the long term best interest of minorities. Right. “Recognizing our common humanity” works so well that it spawned the needed Black Lives Matter activism and also the hatred-spewing whites who think that White Lives Matter is an equal proposition. Getting more people into office who don’t think the way that people you are defending do will be better for the majority female, mostly non-white, increasingly genderfluid, and rapidly increasing non-religious future population. Not only will government be more representative of those groups, those elected leaders will be of any conceivable persuasion or genetics because they will recognize the diversity. We know what the opposition will look like. It will look like what it looks like now, except smaller and smaller and smaller until its power is taken completely away. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/90 "2016-04-11T04:32:06Z")
Exactly. So if a white female is running against a black male, women should always vote for the white female because women understand their interests better than a black man. And in California, the Latinos there should support Loretta Sanchez over Kamala Harris for the Senate because she’s a Latina too. A black woman will not serve their interests as well as a Latina woman. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/91 "2016-04-11T06:32:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Exactly. So if a white female is running against a black male, women should always vote for the white female because women understand their interests better than a black man. And in California, the Latinos there should support Loretta Sanchez over Kamala Harris for the Senate because she’s a Latina too. A black woman will not serve their interests as well as a Latina woman. You doggedly refuse to understand the point. And so we come back full circle to the same old hyperbolic argument. Again. (Hmm hyperbolic circle…) ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/92 "2016-04-11T06:58:29Z")
In this case, I don’t think I’ve missed the point. Women should vote for women" is in your title. So that means that women should vote for women, which in 2008 meant women should have favored Clinton over Obama. What am I getting wrong here? Should women support Clinton over Sanders or not? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/93 "2016-04-11T08:23:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > In this case, I don’t think I’ve missed the point. Women should vote for women" is in your title. So that means that women should vote for women, which in 2008 meant women should have favored Clinton over Obama. > > What am I getting wrong here? Should women support Clinton over Sanders or not? You’re looking for an absolute answer where there is none. Everything is dependent on where an individual woman’s political beliefs fall, how closely they relate to the two Dems, and how much she weights her own feminism. I do not ignore or lessen the effect of political ideology/policy stands/etc. on the voting decision; however, I believe that feminism can and should be included in the calculus by women. I also believe that not including it for whatever reason is a mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/94 "2016-04-11T14:53:06Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > You doggedly refuse to understand the point. And so we come back full circle to the same old hyperbolic argument. > > Again. > > (Hmm hyperbolic circle…) You know where we also see people refusing to make a case, and instead simply repeat the same line over and over no matter what refutations are given? Conspiracy theory threads. Birthers. Moon hoaxers. That guy I was arguing with who insisted that economists don’t pay attention to the depreciation of cars. People who insist that 0.9999~ /= 1. They all argue in exactly the same fashion. If you knew nothing at all about the subject - the proverbial Martian anthropologist - you would know they were wrong just by analyzing the responses. A Martian would wonder how this psychology was possible and want to dig deeper into the pathology. We Earthlings are just sick and tired of the nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/95 "2016-04-11T15:40:18Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You know where we also see people refusing to make a case, and instead simply repeat the same line over and over no matter what refutations are given? > > Conspiracy theory threads. Birthers. Moon hoaxers. That guy I was arguing with who insisted that economists don’t pay attention to the depreciation of cars. People who insist that 0.9999~ /= 1. This argument is a fallacy. _“Because Conspiracy theorists, Birthers, Moon hoaxers, argue this way, and are wrong, therefore anyone who argues the same way is wrong, too.”_ ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/96 "2016-04-11T16:07:18Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > What you are proposing is a double standard. You say that as if it’s a point that ends the conversation. Sometimes double standards are ok. If a group is disadvantaged, a double standard which may help in equalizing them isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Basically, who cares if it’s a double standard? A white man voting for a white man because of his characteristics is voting to perpetuate his own privilege and power. A black man voting for a black man because his characteristics is voting to help overturn privilege and power structures which haven’t allowed black men to be in charge in the past. The intention is totally different and that’s totally ok. Yes, sometimes double standards can be good. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/97 "2016-04-11T16:24:46Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > This argument is a fallacy. > > _“Because Conspiracy theorists, Birthers, Moon hoaxers, argue this way, and are wrong, therefore anyone who argues the same way is wrong, too.”_ Once again, I never said it was a universal principle. It is a wonderful rule of thumb. To be honest I’ve never seen an exception on these boards. If you can find one, please point it out to me so that I can see it for myself. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/98 "2016-04-11T16:25:54Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > You say that as if it’s a point that ends the conversation. Sometimes double standards are ok. If a group is disadvantaged, a double standard which may help in equalizing them isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Basically, who cares if it’s a double standard? A white man voting for a white man because of his characteristics is voting to perpetuate his own privilege and power. A black man voting for a black man because his characteristics is voting to help overturn privilege and power structures which haven’t allowed black men to be in charge in the past. The intention is totally different and that’s totally ok. Yes, sometimes double standards can be good. It’s unequal treatment. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/99 "2016-04-11T16:28:00Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > It’s unequal treatment. So what? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392/100 "2016-04-11T16:34:55Z")
Its ok for minorities to vote for minorities simply because they are minorities. Its not ok the other way around [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-women-should-vote-for-women/751392.md?page=6)