Two More Things People Think But Won't Say

[David Sklansky]

No politician, except president is observed this closely. And few politicians except president are put into situations where they might be asked for stressful quick decisions.

I already agreed that the PMS issue, if it even exists at all, is just one factor. Not a deciding factor. And if it could be addressed, perhaps with doctor's statements, then fine. But mere observation doesn't make it go away. It is not like a woman dispensing with the fact that a man is more than ten times as likely to score 700 on the math SAT than a woman is (in the US anyway). She can simply take the test to prove she is an exception. No such simple solution exists regarding PMS.

[samster]

[ QUOTE ]
Again people are missing my point. Which is that IF a certain small percentage of women are SERIOUSLY affected by PMS, (much more so than men might be by their own unique problems) it is not wrong to factor that small probability into the equation even if the great majority of woman are UNFAIRLY hurt by such probabalistic calculations.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if only men were alcoholics? Would you rather have a woman with PMS 3 days a month or an alcoholic as a president?

[luckyme]

PMS is the least of my worries in a leader. Your fixation on one cause of screwed up thinking is strange. My only concern is poor decision making, whatever the cause, I don't even want to know the cause. I'm sure I'll never know what Nixon's problem was, but not likely PMS.
I can't believe a person could observe GW in a debate or two or in an interview and not know there were neurons in trouble ( nevermind his history).

luckyme

[GiantBuddha]

Isn't poor decision making a requisite for the president?

[CutMyselfShavin]

#2 seems to be a pretty terrible way to make such important decisions. this was mentioned earlier, but there could be an argument made that we should not elect a black president because s/he would be more likely to be affected by race than a white person. OR that we should not elect a woman because she could be seen as less credible in foreign affairs. MAYBE the best example is to consider not electing a president who is not allowed to marry in many states because s/he is gay. these arguments ONLY exist because there exists racism, sexism, and certainly heterosexism in the country/world. while it may be true that the existence of these things could affect the efficacy of a president it seems much worse to support something that seems to perpetually affirm racism, sexism, and heterosexism. that being, the constant affirmation of the white-male as the figure head of the united states.

so. i think the reason is clear why people don't say number 2. regardless of whatever may be proved about the effects of PMS, the alternative is much worse. maybe the fact that a candidate is FEMALE should be the tie-breaker in her favor.

[CutMyselfShavin]

i forgot to mention one more thing. the president's so-called "quick decisions" rarely exist and should PALE in comparison to some of the things our presidents have done over the years. Bush's "axis of evil" rhetoric. the INVASION of iraq. the support of israel in the UN. the impeachment of clinton. the collapse of the doha talks in cancun because our refusal to make concessions on farm subsidies.

so if you are saying that PMS would affect a woman SO much as to SCARE you more than these things then you are crazy, david, crazy.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
while it may be true that the existence of these things could affect the efficacy of a president it seems much worse to support something that seems to perpetually affirm racism, sexism, and heterosexism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's doing more to perpetually affirm racism, sexism, and heterosexism? The person saying we should judge individuals as close to optimally as possible (David) or the person saying we should ignore factual evidence and seek to force equality upon each race and gender, even if that equality does not exist naturally (you)?

[CutMyselfShavin]

this is pretty dangerous rhetoric. first, there is no reason using a biological consideration (PMS) that has psychological effects to damage the qualifications of a candidate would preclude using societal forces (racism, etc.) that have the similiar effects as REASONS to prefer candidates.

second, it is denying equality to say a biological difference such as PMS makes a woman less qualified for office (even if it would only apply to a few women it still assumes only one gender category). i am saying that it is worse for sexism to continue to elect male presidents and it would GREATLY help diminism it were we to elect female presidents.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
it is denying equality to say a biological difference such as PMS makes a woman less qualified for office

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me remind you what you said:

[ QUOTE ]
while it may be true that the existence of these things could affect the efficacy of a president

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not PMS actually matters is not the point. The point is that if it did effect the President's likely ability to do his or her job, then it should be factored in. (It shouldn't be ignored because it is comforting to think of men and women as "equal".)


[ QUOTE ]
i am saying that it is worse for sexism to continue to elect male presidents and it would GREATLY help diminism it were we to elect female presidents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if rationally determining the best person for a job based on all available data (including data that is innate to that person's gender) is a problem, then we would help to diminish this "problem" by beginning to ignore facts and logical assessments. I agree.

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again people are missing my point. Which is that IF a certain small percentage of women are SERIOUSLY affected by PMS, (much more so than men might be by their own unique problems) it is not wrong to factor that small probability into the equation even if the great majority of woman are UNFAIRLY hurt by such probabalistic calculations.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if only men were alcoholics? Would you rather have a woman with PMS 3 days a month or an alcoholic as a president?

[/ QUOTE ]

Awful awful awful analogy. Even if 10% of men were alcoholics, whether someone is an alcoholic can be known. David's point stiplates that how a woman is affected by PMS is unknowable.