yep. we got us these thangs called HORmones.

and well, even then if you forget a day or two as it turns out.

AMEN sista/motha!

Where do they stand on the Issues? Contrary to "popular" belief, I would be willing to bet that if women or blacks did not agree on a large number of issues their respective "representation" stood for, gender/race would quickly become a moot point. If I was a Christian, Pro-Life woman, there's a chance I wouldn't be voting for Hilary.

Here we go. Now we're back to the "because women are the ones that get pregnant, men have no right whatsoever to discuss any facet of women's rights, lest they be called 'ignorant' or 'sexist' " argument. The writing's been going downhill since Season 3.

Not every white, Anglo male is looking out only for themselves. Maybe you'll understand that soon enough.

-TM

It's an interesting question. If you accept the premise that gender/racial bias still exists (which is essentially indisputable), I think you have to at least entertain the concession that a consideration for those factors is fair game, and possibly beneficial (though not necessarily so).

The first issue, which you address, is putting to bed the canard that factoring issues of race/gender into your decision equals deciding entirely on that factor alone. An avowed feminist wouldn't vote for Anne Coulter simply to get a woman into the Oval Office, and a racial progressive wouldn't vote for JC Watts for president simply to get an black person into office. But, let's start from here: if all other things were equal - eg, if you had two exactly equally appealing candidates based upon the issues, one a white male and the other an under-represented minority, wouldn't it make sense (knowing and accepting the inital premise that gender/racial bias and under-representation still exist) to pick the minority?

I think it would. And if you're on board with that, it makes some sense to consider what extent we are talking about. Again, if you are a feminist or progressive, if the hypothetical two candidates weren't EXACTLY equal - if the white male were just slightly better or closer to you on the issues, would it still make sense to vote for the minority? It might, if you consider the issue of widening diversity in higher office enough of a counterbalance or more of a priority than candidate A's divergence from you in the issues. It might still make sense if there was more than a slight difference or quite significant difference in the candidates; most of the criteria we are taking into consideration are highly subjective based on what issues one considers most important, how wide one sees the gender/racial gap, and whether/how much one thinks the election of a minority candidate is itself beneficial to solving that.

To those who are against the idea of a candidate's sex or skin color being in any way, shape or form a factor in deciding to vote for them, I might ask: are you also against affirmative action in any form? Many of the issues of minority representation weighed alongside merit as a deciding factor are basically identical. Or maybe the feeling is that affirmative action criteria shouldn't be used for something as important as election to the nation's highest office? But if so, isn't that belittling to the goals of affirmative action as a means? Saying, essentially, that it's well and good to help minorities get ahead in minor positions, but let's not use the same decision-making process when the job really matters?

Wow, you're really all over the place here.

You say that women and minority groups bring with them their own unique world views and experiences. And that we should take race and gender into account when we decide who to vote for. In your words: "it matters." But that at the same time, you admit that people's world views are not specific to their race/gender (The Churchill/Schlafly and Clinton/Obama statement).So if you were to vote for a woman because she was a woman, you could end up with either Liddy Dole or Nancy Pelosi. And/or everything in-between. There is no standard female opinion on an issue. There are as many variations as there are for men.

So basically, what you are saying here is that it matters and it doesn't matter. Correct? If so, what gives with the title?

Geez, while some of what said is somewhat accurate, its also a bigoted viewpoint to assume that just because I'm a lower-middle class white male, I can be grouped into a demographic with other lower-middle class white males, when this matter is considered as strictly as it is here.

Also, no offense, my Critical Thinking and Discourse professor would have a field day with many of the assertions put forth there, not because they are factual or nonfactual, but because the argument is incomplete. It made the whole thing really difficult for me to follow/read.

As I'm about to go to bed I will simply say that I agree with this entire article and Bitch_PhD is my favourite SG news contributor.

Ok, so it doesn't matter except when it does. I can live with that. I guess.

I have never felt intergender discourse happening anywhere else like they do in these newswires. No lie!


It's usually one side or the other.

I like Hillary's moderate democratic position and I hope they will have great economic advisors like the last Clinton admin. Democratic economists are rare.

I like Obama's "Let our generation have a chance to move beyond the simple 'Racism Bad, Diversity Good' paradigm of the Boomers" speech. I can't wait for my generation to be in charge. I am so tired of the self-congratulations of the previous generation.

I was with you till the second paragraph.

/= ?

/= !