|
|
|
|
#1
11-25-2007, 04:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is Clinton as pushy as we think?
[ QUOTE ]
Chance that a woman is lying to you or trying to manipulate you = A Chance that a politician is lying to you or trying to manipulate you = B A+B > B [/ QUOTE ] Do we tolerate overt sexism? The exact same thing could be said about a man. 
|
|
#3
11-25-2007, 04:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Clinton as pushy as we think?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I am however saying that for an outsider it does seem you like your country has an enormous gender inequality problem. [/ QUOTE ] The gender inequality is a lot less in the USA than in poker. [/ QUOTE ] The number of women in politics (especially senate and congress) is very low compared to many other countries. [/ QUOTE ] Somehow, Pakistan has elected a female president, and we haven't. How is that possible? Aren't muslim countries supposed to be more sexist than western countries?
|
|
#4
11-25-2007, 08:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Clinton as pushy as we think?
[ QUOTE ]
Somehow, Pakistan has elected a female president, and we haven't. How is that possible? Aren't muslim countries supposed to be more sexist than western countries? [/ QUOTE ] I think itīs fair to say that Pakistan is far more sexist than the US even though they have had a female prime minister. Benazir Bhutto gained much of her popularity from being the oldest child of the popular Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, but it is certainly interresting that a muslim country actually elected a female leader. But there are some modernity in muslim countries that we dont see as clearly here in the west, a country like Iran has a high percentage of female students and also a decent science community. Im not sure how other European countries are, but in Norway there are rules that ensure a pretty even distribution of males and females in the parliament, each party has to have at least 40% women on their ballots in an election. Im not sure if thats an approach that would be popular in the US, as it limits the freedom of a party to choose their own representatives.
|
|
#6
11-25-2007, 04:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Clinton as pushy as we think?
[ QUOTE ]
But women? Not so much. Nancy Pelosi, Janet Reno, Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright. I cannot see myself -- we are speaking metaphorically here -- cuddling up to any of them. They all seem formidable, off-putting, cold. Which suggests the problem here is not so much them as me. And, if I may be so bold, we. As in, we seem unable to synthesize the idea that a woman can be smart, businesslike, demanding, capable, in charge and also warm. [/ QUOTE ] Only a typical liberal-guilt-ridden-male would fall for the specious reasoning of this article. So, if I don't like Hillary, it's my fault huh?? What a load of psycho-babble horse-[censored]. Sounds like the author really wants a Democrat to win and is afraid that people won't like Hillary because she's a horrible person, so might as well blame the voters....it's obviously their fault for not liking Hillary their saviour.
|
|
#7
11-27-2007, 02:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Clinton as pushy as we think?
In times of relative stability, we tend to elect our presidents based on our idealized selves and twisted to form by the era in which we live. We elected Ronald Reagan because he represented the maturation, solidity and stability we sought to affect after the idealism of the sixties and the subsequent crash and burn into Vietnam and Watergate. We elected Bush 1 purely because of the comfort level and continuity he represented. We elected Bill Clinton (over the stuffier but arguably more "electable" challengers) as cultural blowback against conservatism's inherent social repression; we wanted to party like Bubba obviously partied. We elected Gore (look it up, people) because it was time to grow back up.
We will probably elect Hillary, because we see where the blind, uber-patriotic rah-rah has gotten us, and now need the cold rationale of the stern but fair school marm to focus our energies. That said, in none of the men mentioned, even though their chief character definition was ambition, was calculation and manipulation considered a bad thing. In fact, it was subtly celebrated. I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was male, and dislike her policies as well as her aura. But the negatives that keep being brought up? Yeah, it is lingering sexism. Hell, I don't even think that's a newsflash as much as an underlying theme. And I will stand against sexism whenever possible, because it's a great way to impress the babes.... Oh, and Low Key? Great post, but once you quote Morrissey, the credibility goes bye-bye.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
