Priest_Sphinxter said:
Bitch_PhD, you say folks should put women's issues front and center, which implies they should shove other issues off to the side. Isn't that, in effect, sexism?
No. It isn't.
Sexism is when an entire social system is stacked against you, not when you're trying to fight that system in order to get a little fucking justice.
It's not that hard to grasp, really. I'm surprised more people don't understand it.
I don't like the implication that by not voting for Hiliary I'm somehow not supporting women's rights. I think women should have every right that men have, but I don't think Hiliary should have the right to run this country.
If you vote for someone just because they are a woman, in the name of women's right you're really doing an injustice to our rights, by showing "hey look women can't make rational decisions."
Maybe it's that I've never been much of a feminist but this whole "vote for hiliary because she's a woman and we need that" thing baffles me. Personally I'd rather vote for the best canidate. Focusing on one particular issue while ignoring the rest doesn't get anything done.
28
zarth
Seattle, WA
December 2004
NOV 14, 2007 09:37 AM
Tallie said:
I don't like the implication that by not voting for Hiliary I'm somehow not supporting women's rights. I think women should have every right that men have, but I don't think Hiliary should have the right to run this country.
First off, any native-born American citizen over the age of thirty-five has the right to run this country. Whether or not they should is a matter of their individual qualifications.
But there's a huge fucking difference between not giving someone a job because there are better candidates available and taking away someone's right to have that job.
You may take that as nitpicking over a sloppy turn of phrase, and to some extent (probably - at least I hope) it is, but it still shows a poor understanding of what is and is not a "right."
Tallie said:
If you vote for someone just because they are a woman, in the name of women's right you're really doing an injustice to our rights, by showing "hey look women can't make rational decisions."
First off here, no-one's saying that her gender is the only thing you should take into account about her candidacy. I'm pretty sure Bitch_PhD wouldn't vote for Elizabeth Dole or Kailey Bay Hutchinson if they were running Barack Obama or John Edwards.
Secondly, what you said didn't make any sense anyway.
Tallie said:
Maybe it's that I've never been much of a feminist but this whole "vote for hiliary because she's a woman and we need that" thing baffles me. Personally I'd rather vote for the best canidate. Focusing on one particular issue while ignoring the rest doesn't get anything done.
And again, you're the one focussing on that one issue to the exclusion of everything else. This is a strawman argument.
And for the record, I'm disinterested here, since I'm not voting for Hillary in the primary.
Bitch_PhD suggests that we just have all married men change jobs with their wives, all single men change jobs with their girlfriends, all male politicians step down, and all boys wear their hair long while all girls get signed up for sports. Let's try that for ten years, and see what happens.
Agreed.
I want the sports, but not the job switching - I'm the breadwinner in my family!
Tallie said:
I don't like the implication that by not voting for Hiliary I'm somehow not supporting women's rights. I think women should have every right that men have, but I don't think Hiliary should have the right to run this country.
If you vote for someone just because they are a woman, in the name of women's right you're really doing an injustice to our rights, by showing "hey look women can't make rational decisions."
Maybe it's that I've never been much of a feminist but this whole "vote for hiliary because she's a woman and we need that" thing baffles me. Personally I'd rather vote for the best canidate. Focusing on one particular issue while ignoring the rest doesn't get anything done.
From the article...
And no, not voting for Clinton doesn't mean you're not a feminist, and it doesn't mean that you're not working for equality in other, perhaps better ways. (But not putting women's issues front and center in who you *do* choose to vote for does.)
Priest_Sphinxter said:
Bitch_PhD, you say folks should put women's issues front and center, which implies they should shove other issues off to the side. Isn't that, in effect, sexism?
No. It isn't.
Sexism is when an entire social system is stacked against you, not when you're trying to fight that system in order to get a little fucking justice.
It's not that hard to grasp, really. I'm surprised more people don't understand it.
Tallie said:
I don't like the implication that by not voting for Hiliary I'm somehow not supporting women's rights. I think women should have every right that men have, but I don't think Hiliary should have the right to run this country.
If you vote for someone just because they are a woman, in the name of women's right you're really doing an injustice to our rights, by showing "hey look women can't make rational decisions."
Maybe it's that I've never been much of a feminist but this whole "vote for hiliary because she's a woman and we need that" thing baffles me. Personally I'd rather vote for the best canidate. Focusing on one particular issue while ignoring the rest doesn't get anything done.
From the article...
And no, not voting for Clinton doesn't mean you're not a feminist, and it doesn't mean that you're not working for equality in other, perhaps better ways. (But not putting women's issues front and center in who you *do* choose to vote for does.)
I get what she wrote but the last sentence really blows that all out the window. I really don't see why women's rights need to be front and center in my voting. I view other things as more important.
Bitch_PhD suggests that we just have all married men change jobs with their wives, all single men change jobs with their girlfriends, all male politicians step down, and all boys wear their hair long while all girls get signed up for sports. Let's try that for ten years, and see what happens.
I've been suggesting this to my boyfriend for years now, but for some reason he doesn't want to trade.
Priest_Sphinxter said:
Either way it's a judgment based purely on what's between her legs rather than what's between her ears.
Here's the thing: what's between our ears has quite a bit to do with what's between our legs, what with gender being one of the primary markers that determines how people treat us from, like, the minute we're born.
Bitch_PhD suggests that we just have all married men change jobs with their wives, all single men change jobs with their girlfriends, all male politicians step down, and all boys wear their hair long while all girls get signed up for sports. Let's try that for ten years, and see what happens.
Lets see the here, i'm without a girlfriend, never been married, my hairs falling out, and hate most sports. But if all the politicians step down i would rejoice.
Speeking of male pattern hair loss, i'm surprised that hasn't been brought up as sexist
zarth
Seattle, WA
December 2004
NOV 14, 2007 08:53 AM