So voting for Elizabeth Dole, for example, to up the number of women in congress is a good idea?

Also, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't Obama have a better record, abortion-wise and on other women's issues, than Hillary?

would it be misogynist to suggest that it's true- work inequality still exists and yes women do make less than men?
. . .

wait, what? voting based on gender does not equal voting based on gender?

supporting a shitty female candidate instead of a good male one simply because she's female is just as wrongheaded as supporting a shitty male candidate instead of a good female one simply because he's male. there is a real and valid problem of women being underrepresented in government, but the idea that attacking the symptom of people not voting for women will cure the disease of inequality is silly.

getting more women into government isn't, in itself, a good thing. getting more competent, qualified women into government and not caring that they're women because being able to do their jobs is what matters should be the goal here.

If by "addressed" you're referring to the part where you infer that that line of thinking is ignorant, yes, you've addressed it. Donating to women's campaigns simply BECAUSE they're women IS sexist. The definition of sexist is prejudice or discrimination based on sex. Explain to me how refusing to give to a male's campaign isn't sexist.

No, he doesn't. Hillary Clinton's record on choice issues and other classically-defined "women's issues" is pretty great (a 100% rating five years running from NARAL, leading the effort to get Plan B available over the counter, her health care work and getting access to good medical care for low-income women, etc.). I'm not denigrating Obama's record, but it's certainly not better than Clinton's.

Sen. Clinton has also been a lot more consistent and firm in her public support of choice rights and a lot less willing to play to people's desire to make moral judgments on abortion-havers than Obama has been, in my opinion.

Anyway, that's probably more for another thread, another time.

By definition if you specifically give money to one candidate over another because the first candidate is female, you are not being "gender-blind."

Do you think you deserve something specifically because you have breasts and a vagina?

The vast majority of political donors don't specifically give money to candidates with penises, they give money to candidates that advance their particular agenda. Far more candidates are men. What the hell do you expect?

Similarly, statistics show that fewer women pursue careers in math, engineering, and many of the sciences. Is that due to an inability to do those things? No. Is it possible that through a mixture of culture and genetic reasons they are simply less inclined to be interested? Quite possibly. And what's wrong with that?

If we found out that blonde people are statistically 95% less likely to go into agriculture, is that a national crisis? Do we need to start after school programs to get more blonde-haired folks to become farmers? Or should we just accept the more logical and reasonable conclusion that it's beyond retarded to expect that the proportions of every career field and general occupation should reflect the demographics of our overall population.

Our goal should be the growth and advancement of ALL people, and focus should be placed on the effective instruction and training of ALL children, regardless of race, gender, or economic background, to succeed in life. To single out one group over the others as being more "deserving" of different demographics destroys any possibility of being gender-blind. It's no different than picking teams in gym class and having the coach make sure that both teams have the same amount of girls. What do you think that tells kids?

Enough with your damn pity party. Men aren't the source of your problems.