Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-20-2004, 10:48 AM   #1 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Women are stupid!

I think that subject line probably got your attention.

Unfortunately, it's not all that intellectually dishonest. My wife and I are currently having an argument about the reality of a woman president/VP, and the reasons it's taking so long to get there. With Hillary on her way to perhaps filling on of those roles, it's on our minds. However, there's every possibility that a whim by John Kerry or John Edwards could cause another long run of white men in power.

Let's say Kerry grabs Edwards as his running mate, wins, and does a pretty good job of running the country (Not that I think that's going to happen, mind you). We'd have 12 years more or less guaranteed that the Dems would be putting one of those guys up for the nomination... meaning my daughter will be finishing college before there's a real possibility of "change". Now, perhaps change could come from the Republican side via Elizabeth Dole or someone, but no Republican woman has gotten the clippings and watercooler of Hillary.

This frustrates me to no end. I love women. They rock. I was raised by two women in a house with my sister and my niece, so I know the species relatively well, and I'm damn certain that there are plenty of leadership-quality women out there, yet we keep pushing up the same old white guys for consideration. I have nothing against white guys, I am one... and I think John Edwards will make a fine president *wink*. However, it's ridiculous to me that a "minority" group that makes up.. oh, over *half* our citizens.. cannot have their own strong, consistent political party or leaders. Where are the great women?

What made me think of these issues were a few situations: #1- the Gary Barnett deal in Colorado. Six women, including a player, alleging rape by the football team, and where is the Hillary Clinton of Jackie O standing up and shouting for these women? If six blacks were assaulted because of their skin color and it came out nationally, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be having their calls forwarded to the Rockies faster than you can say "KKK". #2- The California Gubernatorial mess. Anyone who tells you Arnold and Bustamante were the two *BEST* choices to lead this state is flat-out lying to you. Arnold's lack of political gonads is prominently on display with the gay marriage issue, and Cruz... well, I'm a Democrat, and I couldn't bring myself to cast a vote for that guy. He's slimy. You mean to tell me there's no one woman who coulda ran the table and actually do a decent job of bringing CA back? Why didn't Feinstein run...? Oh, yeah... the Democratic "boys" asked her not to. #3- recent news stories that keep popping up about this woman or that girl, raped and killed, just killed, whatever. The guy who kept several girls in a dungeon for months at a time, and the police who just didn't believe them, till he was caught red-handed. (He's not even doing LIFE in prison.)

So, my blanket statement is that if women banned together for a platform of leadership that covered moderate issues (As most voters are moderate) and actually ADDRESSED women's issues in a proactive way, the resulting political party would likely be large enough to defeat both power parties. I'm not talking crazy lesbian "girl power" politics, I'm talking actual politics women are concerned about... generally, family issues, personal freedoms, so on. The president doesn't have to be strong enough to wrestle a bear, he/she just has to be smart enough to figure out how NOT to.

So, no, women aren't stupid, as a rule, but they are stupid if they think the power hungry MEN are just going to hand over leadership to them without a fight, and while it's not a *declared* battle, it is being fought.

What are your opinions on my rambling?
Tomservo is offline  
Old 02-20-2004, 11:03 AM   #2 (permalink)
My future is coming on
 
lurkette's Avatar
 
Moderator Emeritus
Location: east of the sun and west of the moon
We're only 1-2 generations out from the "women's lib" movement, and there are still a lot of people who grew up in a time when a woman was considered a weak, sacred, precious, infantile object incapable of having a credit card in her own name. Cultural change takes time, and we're still living with a lot of very disempowering ideas about women and femininity, and we're still living within a political culture shaped by ideals that are considered traditionally masculine: competition, aggression, self-interest, etc. Until the political culture changes to accommodate more "female" types of ideals (cooperation, compromise, communalism) or until society gets more comfy with women (and men) adopting gender-opposite traits, I think you'll find that few women have any interest in participating in our political process on a leadership level.
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France
lurkette is offline  
Old 02-20-2004, 11:35 AM   #3 (permalink)
follower of the child's crusade?
 
The UK had a female prime minister. The very people who might accuse of being sexist were the people who voted for Thatcher. I dont think it is a case that the people wouldnt vote for a woman at all, just that they have never had the option of a credible female candidate for president.
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas
Strange Famous is offline  
Old 02-20-2004, 03:51 PM   #4 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Strange Famous- that's the issue- men will *not* champion a strong female candidate. Unless they get the word out through some alternative method (Say, being a president's wife), they're not going to have the necessary exposure.

Not having a credible option for president doesn't mean there aren't qualified candidates out there- it just means they're not running. And where did I accuse anyone of being sexist? I put the blame for this squarely on the women who aren't forcing themselves to be heard, not the men who seem just fine ignoring them.
Tomservo is offline  
Old 02-20-2004, 04:02 PM   #5 (permalink)
follower of the child's crusade?
 
What can I say? Margaret Thatcher...
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas
Strange Famous is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 06:24 AM   #6 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Margaret Thatcher was a woman?




....j/k





...I think.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 04:09 PM   #7 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: watching from the treeline
Quote:
Originally posted by lurkette
communalism
I thought this was America.

Who gives a shit about what a presidential candidate has between their legs? I'm honestly trying to see past a person's skin and gender, but people like you all won't let me forget.
timalkin is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 08:05 PM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
I concur, this whole issue is silly, gender doesn't matter, so why make it?
Xell101 is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 10:24 AM   #9 (permalink)
Her Jay
 
silent_jay's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario for now....
Canada tried the female PM (we all remember Kim Campbell) and what a mistake that was. I see nothing wrong with a woman in any position of political power (Hillary Clinton will be President someday) like someone else said who cares what the candidate has between thier legs its thier political viewpoints that matter
__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder
silent_jay is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 01:29 PM   #10 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
in regards to the first post's mention of Elizabeth Dole, don't forget about Condaleeza Rice. I think she is the most viable female candidate from that side of the aisle.

i still don't understand what makes Hillary so popular. she married a guy who became president. big whoop. if she hadn't tagged along with Bill, she would probably be a very successful woman... but no one would even consider her a candidate for public office.

i would happily vote for a woman (i dont' think it'd be much of a factor), but there just haven't been any serious female candidates in the US. I would've voted for Thatcher if i lived in the UK. the problem is that many female candidates promote fringe platforms (carolyn mosely braun (sp?), nancy pelosi etc...), a male with the same political stance would be treated identically.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:01 PM   #11 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: Urf
The comparison between blacks and women is not a valid one. Whereas blacks vote pretty much as one (of course there are exceptions), women don't. There are predominantly black areas that elect black legislators, but there aren't any female areas. The socioeconomic range for women is much more varied than that of blacks.

My point: women are not united as one voting block because they are too different, and what is why they don't have much political power as a group. Their political power is a part of the power of their respective political leanings. Regardless, why is there such a desire for a woman to become president? Does anyone want to start World War 3 because of PMS?
User Name is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:44 PM   #12 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
Quote:
Originally posted by User Name
Does anyone want to start World War 3 because of PMS?
oh man, this could get ugly.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:56 PM   #13 (permalink)
Her Jay
 
silent_jay's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario for now....
Quote:
Originally posted by irateplatypus
i still don't understand what makes Hillary so popular. she married a guy who became president. big whoop. if she hadn't tagged along with Bill, she would probably be a very successful woman... but no one would even consider her a candidate for public office.
do you have inside info that says Hillary would not have been a candidate for public office, or do you just not like her and figure she can't get in on her own merits.

Quote:
Originally posted by User Name
Does anyone want to start World War 3 because of PMS?
that comment should be quarrintined.
__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder
silent_jay is offline  
Old 02-23-2004, 11:52 AM   #14 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
This thread has taken care of itself!

We've got blacks voting as a block, Hillary only being considered a candidate because of her husband, and pms starting WW3!

I'll continue by simply stating a few facts: Margaret Thatcher was in England, which is a far more mature country than ours (In terms of years). England has been close to both WW's and can relate closely to how leadership is more key than "guy power". Additionally, queens preceded Thatcher. Here, we've never had even a slight semblance of the "most powerful person in the US" being a woman. There are similarities between the countries, but this is a major difference.

Connie Rice is tainted, as are the entire group of Bush apologists. If Bush fails to be re-elected, the entire lot of his good squad will be off-limits for major political office, including Powell. As much as folks argue about Bush being a liar, whatever, it's Rice/Powell/Rumsfeld so on that actually face the people more often than not- and the people don't forget.

If Bush wins, who knows- Rice might be in line!

Interesting thought, however, what if Kerry named Hillary veep candidate? In response, Bush *could* name Dole or Rice his veep candidate. While this would be a standard political ploy, it would also guarantee a lady veep. That's be interesting.
Tomservo is offline  
Old 02-23-2004, 03:00 PM   #15 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
i think that if a woman becomes a decent candidate for office (prez or vice), that would symbolize a positive shift in society's view of women. however, i would certainly roll my eyes at the hundreds of thousands who would vote for suck a ticket just because of the novelty of having a woman on it.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 02-23-2004, 04:36 PM   #16 (permalink)
Insane
 
Dont think thats true Tom. If Bush gets trumped in the election well then sure of course your right. But if its close then Connie can run in 08, you add Bush supporters, more Women, and more blacks to the equation and she may be able to win. Of course this is all hypothetical depending on how the next 4 years go, Kerry or Bush.
__________________
?
theusername is offline  
Old 02-23-2004, 05:29 PM   #17 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
I don't know how it ranks on the Presidential Succession list, but Nancy Pelosi is, I'm pretty sure, the highest ranking female congresswoman ever - not sure if that outranks SecState though (which would make her the highest ranking, period). The fact that there was ZERO hubalaboo about it just shows how far we've come in the last 50 years.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 02-23-2004, 06:40 PM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
I think that women leaders being an issue is an 'American' thing.

=Current Female Presidents=

Prime Minister Helen Clark - New Zealand
President Mary McAleese - Ireland
President Megawati Sukarnoputri - Indonesia
President Vaira Vike-Freiberga - Latvia
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo - The Phillipines
President Mireya Moscoso - Panama
Prime Minister Khaleda Zia - Bangladesh
President Tarja Halonen - Finland

=Past Female World Leaders=

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi - India
President Corazon Aquino - Phillipines
Prime Minister Golda Meir - Israel
Prime Minister Marge Thatcher - Britain
Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto - Pakistan
Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland - Norway
powerclown is offline  
Old 02-23-2004, 09:10 PM   #19 (permalink)
Her Jay
 
silent_jay's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario for now....
You forgot Kim Campbell in Canada she had a cup of tea as Prime Minister at least that's how long she was in office.
__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder
silent_jay is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 01:44 PM   #20 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Powerclown- yes, I realize it's an Amercian thing. That's kinda the point.

We should be a mature enough society here in the USofA to present at least a believable female presidential candidate - but as of now, we're not. Too young? Who knows...
Tomservo is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 03:24 PM   #21 (permalink)
Crazy
 
nosuchuserexist's Avatar
 
Location: Obliviousness
Quote:
Originally posted by Tomservo
If Bush wins, who knows- Rice might be in line!
I'm neither racist or sexist but I kinda doubt I'll see a female prez (or VP for that matter) in my lifetime and I'm sure I'll see hell freeze over before I see a "minority" female prez. It's sad but true.

On a completely unrelated note, everytime I hear the name "Condoleeza Rice" I can't help but think 'side dish'. "Yeah, I'll have the steak special but instead of a baked potato can I get a side of Condoleeza Rice?"
__________________
"I run good but I'm hard to start. And my brakes are bad so I'm hard to stop."
-Mark Sandman - Vocalist, Morphine
nosuchuserexist is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 04:42 PM   #22 (permalink)
Her Jay
 
silent_jay's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario for now....
Quote:
Originally posted by nosuchuserexist
On a completely unrelated note, everytime I hear the name "Condoleeza Rice" I can't help but think 'side dish'. "Yeah, I'll have the steak special but instead of a baked potato can I get a side of Condoleeza Rice?"
I have that same problem with her name everytime I hear it I get hungry.
__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder
silent_jay is offline  
Old 03-05-2004, 01:20 PM   #23 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Hell
Quote:
Originally posted by powerclown
I think that women leaders being an issue is an 'American' thing.

=Current Female Presidents=

Prime Minister Helen Clark - New Zealand
President Mary McAleese - Ireland
President Megawati Sukarnoputri - Indonesia
President Vaira Vike-Freiberga - Latvia
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo - The Phillipines
President Mireya Moscoso - Panama
Prime Minister Khaleda Zia - Bangladesh
President Tarja Halonen - Finland

=Past Female World Leaders=

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi - India
President Corazon Aquino - Phillipines
Prime Minister Golda Meir - Israel
Prime Minister Marge Thatcher - Britain
Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto - Pakistan
Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland - Norway
I don't understand why Americans are so far behind? It's seriously sad.
__________________
Bite Me...

But Only If Invited
Bleed Me Dry is offline  
Old 03-05-2004, 01:53 PM   #24 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
How is america lagging behind pakistan when it comes to electing female leaders? Oh yeah, its couse we're america.
filtherton is offline  
Old 03-05-2004, 11:26 PM   #25 (permalink)
Crazy
 
If there is a canditate that I feel deserves my vote, I will give it regardless of gender. Its not that hard. There are plenty of women with important titles in this country, and I don't think its here or there that none have been president.
__________________
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."
Tholo is offline  
Old 03-06-2004, 01:29 AM   #26 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
If you think females were granted rights and suffrage(sp) (crunked) of their merit and accords you are ignorant. They were granted rights because the white males in power thought it convienent to try and gain power through the diminishing vote population and political campus cicling WWI. Now I'll be the first to admit that they are as able and ready to take power as men, but as far as the status quo goes it just is not a feasable reality.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 03-06-2004, 01:33 AM   #27 (permalink)
follower of the child's crusade?
 
The main parties could (and maybe should) adopt quota's of 49% percent of the people standing for election for them being women. In the UK the Labour party encouraged all woman short lists for many constituancies, and it did work insofar as getting more women MP's, but it was unpopular with the Right Wing press.
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas
Strange Famous is offline  
Old 03-06-2004, 11:54 AM   #28 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: watching from the treeline
Quote:
Originally posted by Strange Famous
The main parties could (and maybe should) adopt quota's of 49% percent of the people standing for election for them being women. In the UK the Labour party encouraged all woman short lists for many constituancies, and it did work insofar as getting more women MP's, but it was unpopular with the Right Wing press.
Quotas? So if for some reason this 49% of candidates is severely lacking the necessary skills and qualities to be effective leaders, the country is just shit out of luck?

I think we've all seen that quotas are bullshit feelgood actions endorsed by the left. I can't believe that there is actually a requirement that x percent of something has to have ovaries instead of testicles.
timalkin is offline  
Old 03-06-2004, 12:44 PM   #29 (permalink)
follower of the child's crusade?
 
I dispute the fact that we all (as you say) accept that quota's and affirmative action is "bullshit", I personally think they are very valuable programs.
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas
Strange Famous is offline  
Old 03-06-2004, 12:57 PM   #30 (permalink)
Wehret Den Anfängen!
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
It might be a matter of time.

To become president of the USA, you need to have massive political clout and be 50+ typically.

So, the female candidate would have had to be born in 1954. Even in the 70s, woman's lib wasn't that far along: how many women in 1974 decided to make a run for president? How many men? Probably a much larger number of men. . . By the 80s, they would want to have some minor political office: what where the percentages of women in the lower rungs of politics?

By the 90s, they would want some significant political power. Govornor ideally, or state majority leader or the like.

The military route would be another way, in which case they'd want to be a general in the 90s.

What percentage of generals and state govornors where women in the 90s?

Representation at the highest points of power lags behind oppertunity at the lowest points (entry-level) by a good 20 to 40 years. President is about as high, power wise, as you can get: so, the composition of presidents reflects the equality in American society circa 1964-1974.

The same things can be found in the boardrooms of the country. If 1 in 100,000 men who started up the corperate ladder 30 years ago are now movers and shakers in the economy, one would expect the same ratio for women.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.
Yakk is offline  
 

Tags
stupid, women

Thread Tools

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 On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:47 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360