Two More Things People Think But Won't Say

[Bjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
A much more important reason not to vote for a woman for President is that the majority of the world's leaders are men women are not as respected across the world as they are here.

[/ QUOTE ]

From reading about Margret Thatcher's experiences as PM in various articles and biographys it didn't seem to be a problem for her. In fact she has said that it was often an advantage for her because she was obviously very well occustomed to dealing with men in position of power but for them it was often a completly new thing dealing with a woman in these circumstances.

/Bjorn

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
From reading about Margret Thatcher's experiences as PM in various articles and biographys it didn't seem to be a problem for her. In fact she has said that it was often an advantage for her because she was obviously very well occustomed to dealing with men in position of power but for them it was often a completly new thing dealing with a woman in these circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Margaret Thatcher is one of a kind though. I think my statement as a broad generalization is a good one. The issue with Hillary is more important IMO.

[mikechops]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

These are very questionable assertions. I find it hard to believe that over the course of a campaign, rumours of bad behaviour wouldn't surface. Over the course of a career leading up to a presidential run, could a candidate rely on debates being scheduled on good days? If someone is incapacitated 10% of the time, surely they would have had a career-ending 'makaka moment' at some point.

[David Sklansky]

My point #2 is a pure math problem. I could have come up with something about men. Or redheads. If PMS is a bad example so be it. But it seemed better than others.

The question is whether a hidden negative, usually hidden attribute of a small percentage of a class of people should be taken into account in situations where the person can't prove they don't have that attribute.

And I totally agree with the poster who made the opposite point. It might be good to give extra points simply because they ARE a member of a group. Barrack Obama comes to mind.

Now what about my Iraq comment.

[goofball]

Do you think Obama being black qualifies him for "extra points'? If not what group do you think he belongs to does?


re: iraq. I'm not sure what you what. Are you asking do we agree with that statement, or do we think most americans agree wtih that it, or do we think that's a reasonable position or what?

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
My point #2 is a pure math problem. I could have come up with something about men. Or redheads. If PMS is a bad example so be it. But it seemed better than others.

The question is whether a hidden negative, usually hidden attribute of a small percentage of a class of people should be taken into account in situations where the person can't prove they don't have that attribute.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the question was, "How come nobody says this stuff?"

If you want to have a rational discussion about hidden negatives and what to do about them, there are plenty of people who'd be up for that. But if you open with a deliberately inflammatory and sexist hypothetical, the discussion is likely to get sidetracked before it even begins. Which is one reason people don't say stuff like that.

As for your Iraq comment, I actually have heard people voice that sentiment, or something close to it.

[gumpzilla]

[ 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 evidence is there for such an assertion? I didn't miss your point, I just think that it's dumb.

[Hofzinser]

[ QUOTE ]
2. As long as even a small fraction of woman suffer PMS to the point where it occasionaly affects their decisions, that one fact is highly relevant as far as voting for a woman president is concerned. At least until she is of the age that doctors agree the syndrome no longer occurs. If after taking the risk into account, someone wants to vote for her anyway, because she is otherwise so good, or the opponent is so bad, fine. But if the decison is close, no one can be faulted for voting against the woman even if the great majority are not affected by PMS. That might not be fair to woman in general but as a voter with kids who doesn't want an increased risk of war,it is perfectly fine for me to change my vote if a statistical, "unfair" fact is good reason to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this may be the most stupid thing I've heard an intelligent person say.

[andyfox]

Many people have made essentially the same point about Iraq. Since we've been there so long and it's costing $2,000,000,000 a week, it's time for the Iraqis to step up. When they say "it's time for the Iraqis to step up," they're saying we don't care enough because the cost is too high.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
The question is whether a hidden negative, usually hidden attribute of a small percentage of a class of people should be taken into account in situations where the person can't prove they don't have that attribute.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it shouldn't. How exactly is Hillary Clinton, for example, supposed to prove she doesn't have raging PMS?

We could either hold the fact that she "might" have PMS against her (since some other women do), or we can judge her on her own merits, by her previous actions as a senator/first lady etc. If I decide Hillary has been an effective senator then I'm going to assume PMS hasn't been an impediment to her.

This seems like a very ethically shaky use of probability to me, as it penalizes people for belonging to a certain group unless they can "prove" they're ok. How is this different than denying a house to a black family because blacks are statistically more likely to commit a crime?