"Why can't we hate men?"

[Fudbucker]

Women have the right to vote and seem to engage that right at slightly higher rates than men consistently for the last few decades. http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/genderdiff.pdf

Any gender imbalance in modern politics is supported by women voters. Women vote for anti-feminist positions like anti-abortion with regularity. Women voted for Trump in high numbers, despite his openly misogynistic traits. Instituting a quota would be restricting the choice of women voters, ostensibly for their own benefit. Sounds very paternalistic to me.

The problem isn't with voters, but rather barriers to entry for female politicians. One such barrier was/is rampant sexual harassment in Congress. So much so, that a taxpayer-funded harassment payout account was on the books for years (has that situation changed yet?).

And yes, sometimes we have to circumvent democracy for peoples' own good. It didn't matter how many people in Alabama supported separate-but-equal policies. That had to stop.

 

[luchog]

I'm rather skeptical of this. Most ordinary voters are given a choice between two male major party candidates, most of the time.

At the same rate as men?

At the same rate as men?

But those candidates are themselves selected in preliminaries by people, plenty of whom are women. Practically anyone can run for office. You just need to drum up support from your base. Which includes loads of women.

Dunno that.

Impossible to say, as voting is private.

According to all the reliable polls that I read at the time, the overall female vote was predominantly for Clinton, and was a large part of the reason for her 3 million vote lead over Trump in the popular vote.

The only demographic where the majority of women voted for Trump was non-college-educated white evangelical Christians, who are an unfortunately large voting bloc in this country. All other female demographics voted for Clinton by margins that range from moderate to overwhelming. They didn't single-handedly elect Trump, but they certainly kicked the race over to him in key districts, which were also typically highly gerrymandered districts with active voter suppression efforts aimed at minority voters.

CNN 2016 Exit Polls

There are other polls, of course, but they all show similar results.

Women, as a whole, tend to vote more liberal overall. Take out the non-college-educated white evangelical Christian demographic, and they vote overwhelmingly liberal by comparison. If not for the substantial barriers that have been erected against women participating in politics, there would very likely be more women elected from predominantly-minority districts and those with more educated and diverse populations.

 

[pharphis]

Question:

Let's suppose that women empathize/support the generic "women's issues" group more than men. Let's suppose the reverse is also true (men for men's issues). I think this is almost certainly the case, even if the differences are minimal.

Now, let's suppose that BOTH men and women support group X's issues less than the other. Should group X therefore need extra support/consideration politically? Should there be more group X than group not-X to account for this?


What I'm asking is: Is "patriarchy" better than "matriarchy", if given the choice? The reverse?

 

[Butter!]

The problem isn't with voters, but rather barriers to entry for female politicians. One such barrier was/is rampant sexual harassment in Congress. So much so, that a taxpayer-funded harassment payout account was on the books for years (has that situation changed yet?).

And yes, sometimes we have to circumvent democracy for peoples' own good. It didn't matter how many people in Alabama supported separate-but-equal policies. That had to stop.

Now see, to me, the highlighted is some really scary holy **** talk. Every bit as jarring as stuff "the other side" says.

And the comparison you're making isn't quite valid. Laws change all the time, whether large factions of society like it or not. You're talking about restructuring the entire way we choose our elected representatives by adding gender-based restrictions (or sex-based, I seriously don't know what I'm supposed to say in that regard, so you'll have to excuse me).

In my strong opinion, what you are proposing is the opposite of progress. And the way you worded it is frankly alarming.

I know you're pretty emotionally invested in the overall issue of equality, and I totally get that. I get fired up about it too. But emotions can run away with reason sometimes.

 

[Fudbucker]

Question:

Let's suppose that women empathize/support the generic "women's issues" group more than men. Let's suppose the reverse is also true (men for men's issues). I think this is almost certainly the case, even if the differences are minimal.

Now, let's suppose that BOTH men and women support group X's issues less than the other. Should group X therefore need extra support/consideration politically? Should there be more group X than group not-X to account for this?


What I'm asking is: Is "patriarchy" better than "matriarchy", if given the choice? The reverse?

I think governments that claim to be democratic should (roughly) reflect the demographics of the country. This is especially true if there has been a history of systematic oppression and discrimination by the majority of the minority (or minorities).

Now, could a government that roughly reflects the demographics of the people it governs make terrible decisions? Sure. But that's in spite of, not because, of it's egalitarian makeup.

 

[Butter!]

According to all the reliable polls that I read at the time, the overall female vote was predominantly for Clinton, and was a large part of the reason for her 3 million vote lead over Trump in the popular vote.

The only demographic where the majority of women voted for Trump was non-college-educated white evangelical Christians, who are an unfortunately large voting bloc in this country. All other female demographics voted for Clinton by margins that range from moderate to overwhelming. They didn't single-handedly elect Trump, but they certainly kicked the race over to him in key districts, which were also typically highly gerrymandered districts with active voter suppression efforts aimed at minority voters.

CNN 2016 Exit Polls

There are other polls, of course, but they all show similar results.

Women, as a whole, tend to vote more liberal overall. Take out the non-college-educated white evangelical Christian demographic, and they vote overwhelmingly liberal by comparison. If not for the substantial barriers that have been erected against women participating in politics, there would very likely be more women elected from predominantly-minority districts and those with more educated and diverse populations.

Do you think there are other means of effectively removing these barriers besides enforcing quotas?

I certainly hope so, because instituting the quotas would break the country. A lot of people simply wouldn't have it. They'd burn this MF down before they'd be told whom they could and could not nominate for office based on sex or gender. It's giving me palpitations just thinking about it.

 

[Fudbucker]

Now see, to me, the highlighted is some really scary holy **** talk. Every bit as jarring as stuff "the other side" says.

And the comparison you're making isn't quite valid. Laws change all the time, whether large factions of society like it or not. You're talking about restructuring the entire way we choose our elected representatives by adding gender-based restrictions (or sex-based, I seriously don't know what I'm supposed to say in that regard, so you'll have to excuse me).

In my strong opinion, what you are proposing is the opposite of progress. And the way you worded it is frankly alarming.

I know you're pretty emotionally invested in the overall issue of equality, and I totally get that. I get fired up about it too. But emotions can run away with reason sometimes.

Are you American? Our whole system is based on fear of giving the masses too much power. How we elect the President is very undemocratic, and the way it was envisioned by the Founders was extremely undemocratic, as was voting for Senators. The Senators from California represent 40 million people. The Senators from N. Dakota represent less than a million, yet those senators have equal power as the ones who represent 40 million. Is that democratic?

If you really want undemocratic, how about this: A system where 9 unelected judges can overrule the will of tens of millions of people. In fact, they can overrule laws passed and supported by the majority of the people. Is that democratic?

 

[Butter!]

Are you American? Our whole system is based on fear of giving the masses too much power. How we elect the President is very undemocratic, and the way it was envisioned by the Founders was extremely undemocratic, as was voting for Senators. The Senators from California represent 40 million people. The Senators from N. Dakota represent less than a million, yet those senators have equal power as the ones who represent 40 million. Is that democratic?

If you really want undemocratic, how about this: A system where 9 unelected judges can overrule the will of tens of millions of people. Is that democratic?

Yes, I am American. That's why I keep saying "we."

Nothing you said is wrong, but why is the solution to erode what democracy we have even further? (Which is precisely how many would perceive the quotas.)

Also, where does it end? I'm not committing the slippery slope fallacy here, I'm making an actual concrete point. Why is it only gender that gets a quota? We have to ensure equal representation, right? So then we'd also need race quotas, religion quotas, all the quotas anyone could dream up. Homosexuals should be fairly represented, since a lot of controversial legislation affects them. Likewise with trans people. Anybody. Just cry "not fair, we changed the rules for wimminz!" and the next thing you know, we might barely have any choice in the matter at all. What if no woman wants to run in a particular district but the quota isn't met? Do we force one to run? It's just too extreme when you start picking it apart.

I think the electoral college is flawed bull **** as well, but that's probably its own thread.

 

[sadhatter]

I think governments that claim to be democratic should (roughly) reflect the demographics of the country. This is especially true if there has been a history of systematic oppression and discrimination by the majority of the minority (or minorities).

Now, could a government that roughly reflects the demographics of the people it governs make terrible decisions? Sure. But that's in spite of, not because, of it's egalitarian makeup.

That is a great way to handicap any minority. Good job.

 

[sadhatter]

Are you American? Our whole system is based on fear of giving the masses too much power. How we elect the President is very undemocratic, and the way it was envisioned by the Founders was extremely undemocratic, as was voting for Senators. The Senators from California represent 40 million people. The Senators from N. Dakota represent less than a million, yet those senators have equal power as the ones who represent 40 million. Is that democratic?

If you really want undemocratic, how about this: A system where 9 unelected judges can overrule the will of tens of millions of people. In fact, they can overrule laws passed and supported by the majority of the people. Is that democratic?

The converse of that is that without those restrictions one only has to win 1 or two states to win the election. Making the political view of those states that of the country.

Understand politics before commenting on the gears.

 

[Fudbucker]

The converse of that is that without those restrictions one only has to win 1 or two states to win the election. Making the political view of those states that of the country.

Understand politics before commenting on the gears.

Um, I know why our system is set up as it is. My point was that the system that we are used to not is very democratic. And for good reasons. The only time we ever vote on actual things (rather than people to represent us), are for local things or when there's a state ballot initiative. And even then, it has to be constitutional, so even then there are constraints on what the populace can decide on.

If it can be shown that not every feature of a political system should be democratic, then a proposed new feature to that system doesn't necessarily have to be democratic. Follow?

ETA: In other words, if quotas are undemocratic, that's not an argument against them. Or, if it is, it's an insufficient one.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Now see, to me, the highlighted is some really scary holy **** talk. Every bit as jarring as stuff "the other side" says.

And the comparison you're making isn't quite valid. Laws change all the time, whether large factions of society like it or not. You're talking about restructuring the entire way we choose our elected representatives by adding gender-based restrictions (or sex-based, I seriously don't know what I'm supposed to say in that regard, so you'll have to excuse me).

In my strong opinion, what you are proposing is the opposite of progress. And the way you worded it is frankly alarming.

I know you're pretty emotionally invested in the overall issue of equality, and I totally get that. I get fired up about it too. But emotions can run away with reason sometimes.

Don't be so emotional. No one is going to have their right to vote taken away. They will just be instructed how to vote the right way by those that know best. /s

 

[d4m10n]

Don't be so emotional. No one is going to have their right to vote taken away. They will just be instructed how to vote the right way by those that know best. /s

The right way, just as with the age limits.

ETA: ...not to mention the natural born citizen requirement.

 

[Fudbucker]

The right way, just as with the age limits.

ETA: ...not to mention the natural born citizen requirement.

Yes, this idea that people get to vote for whomever they want is ridiculous. Is a 24-year old Representative going to do a worse job than a 25-year old one? But those be the rules, and if the person you want to vote for isn't 25, too bad.

 

[Klimax]

The problem isn't with voters, but rather barriers to entry for female politicians. One such barrier was/is rampant sexual harassment in Congress. So much so, that a taxpayer-funded harassment payout account was on the books for years (has that situation changed yet?).

And yes, sometimes we have to circumvent democracy for peoples' own good. It didn't matter how many people in Alabama supported separate-but-equal policies. That had to stop.

Such seemingly noble ideas (circumventing democracy) can and are always abused faster then any supposed good can come from them.

 

[luchog]

Do you think there are other means of effectively removing these barriers besides enforcing quotas?

WTF do quotas have to do with anything I posted? I think you have me mistaken for a different poster.

 

[luchog]

Now see, to me, the highlighted is some really scary holy **** talk. Every bit as jarring as stuff "the other side" says. .

Except that that is how American government works, and always has. We're not a democracy, we're a representative republic, and we expect that our representatives will do what is right for all citizens, regardless of what the majority of citizens want or believe, to prevent "The Tyranny of the Majority".

Nearly every major advance in human rights in this country had to be imposed by the government, and it was actively fought against (and much of it still is) by a huge percentage of the population. That's then entire reason for the Secession of the Confederate States, after all. If it had been left to a majority vote, slavery would have remained the law of the land for many, many decades longer than it did, and Jim Crow laws never would have been repealed in the overwhelming number states that enacted them. Hell, there a whole lot of people in bit parts of this country who are trying to return us to those days.

In this particular case, quotas for politician's doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, but government overriding the will of the majority most certainly does.

Such seemingly noble ideas (circumventing democracy) can and are always abused faster then any supposed good can come from them.

Except, again, America is not actually a democracy, never has been, and there is a very good reason for that.

 

[theprestige]

What kind of skeptics would we be if we saw a subjective statement of personal doubt and then strawmanned it into an empirical claim about the world?

A) I'd be surprised if X is true.

B) X is demonstrably true.

Can you see a difference here?

Opinions can still be informed opinions. What informs your opinion?

 

[d4m10n]

Opinions can still be informed opinions. What informs your opinion?

Talking to men, of course.

 

[theprestige]

Talking to men, of course.

Why didn't you just say that to begin with?