US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2949
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
Chewbacca.
United States3634 Posts
| ||
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On February 18 2016 09:55 Chewbacca. wrote: Pretty sure that a male candidates "maleness" doesn't come up because "I'm a man" isn't a key point of male candidates campaigns You're right. Male candidates should be doing more hip thrusts mid-debate, in order to capitalize on their masculinity, and assert their dominance. | ||
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On February 18 2016 09:55 Chewbacca. wrote: Pretty sure that a male candidates "maleness" doesn't come up because "I'm a man" isn't a key point of male candidates campaigns Do you get how it doesn't have to be for the male candidate? But for Hillary it is unavoidable? That is the gender privilege that the posters here are missing. Hillary constantly has to be careful to not upset the fragile male egos that would be afraid of her claiming too much advancement for women, or perhaps appealing to women as a woman. This is much like Obama's race where we all had to solemnly debate just how black he could campaign before he would be too black. But the question never came up for his white opponents. | ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
On February 18 2016 09:51 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Do you guys see how even having this giant argument about how much femaleness Hillary can claim is evidence of the gender bias she faces? A male candidate simply never gets this discussion. You never have to weigh in on how much male-ness a male candidate can claim in his race. Check out Trump for instance. Or JEB's preposterous gun photo. With a female candidate, we all have to have deep thoughts about just how much feminine progress Hillary can claim without going over our delicate sensibilities. Should she claim too much, our fragile male egos would be offended and we simply have to despise her. BTW, the men in this thread panicking over women claiming too much women stuff are seriously weak. You guys ought have a little pride than to be hurt by Hillary's fairly tame claims to female progress. // 32yo white male poster Yeah I don't need the lecture on bias... The argument about "but men do it too" reminds me of her argument for having a super PAC. Her opponent doesn't have one, just as in this there is practically nothing in Bernie's campaign emphasizing his maleness. You're right about people on the right trying to instigate though. | ||
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On February 18 2016 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah I don't need the lecture on bias... The argument about "but men do it too" reminds me of her argument for having a super PAC. Her opponent doesn't have one, just as in this there is practically nothing in Bernie's campaign emphasizing his maleness. You're right about people on the right trying to instigate though. Yes yes, Bernie's campaign doesn't have to answer gender questions. But Hillary's does and necessarily has to. Like when Albright stepped over the offensive line and made claims about women supporting other women. We all freaked out that Hillary was making a gender play. Grand paens were written by men clutching their pearls that they might be excluded from an appeal and Hillary simply must repudiate her offensive gender politics. The line that Hillary has to tiptoe around does not exist for Bernie, and doesn't exist for the male Republican candidates. The "line" being that Hillary must not claim too much feminism lest she be accused of playing gender politics. I am not attacking Bernie here. I am trying to point out a systemic bias going on and provoke some posters here to question just why we have to have these discussions about Hillary being too feminist. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
NEW YORK—Citing her lackluster support among young voters, campaign consultants to Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential frontrunner who has served as both a U.S. senator and secretary of state, reportedly instructed the candidate this week to be more inspiring. “Right now, voters are looking for a candidate who stands for real societal change, someone who can stir something inside them,” said media advisor Jim Margolis, urging the woman—who overcame entrenched societal biases to build a successful legal career, became the first female senator elected in the state of New York, oversaw the Department of State during a period of widespread international tumult, and, if elected, would be the first female president in American history—to appear more uplifting to voters. “Many young people have completely lost faith in the political process, and they want to believe that true progress is actually possible. They want someone who embodies progressive ideals.” Margolis added that Clinton was too much a part of the establishment she spent decades breaking down barriers to enter. Source | ||
ZackAttack
United States884 Posts
On February 18 2016 09:51 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Do you guys see how even having this giant argument about how much femaleness Hillary can claim is evidence of the gender bias she faces? A male candidate simply never gets this discussion. You never have to weigh in on how much male-ness a male candidate can claim in his race. Check out Trump for instance. Or JEB's preposterous gun photo. With a female candidate, we all have to have deep thoughts about just how much feminine progress Hillary can claim without going over our delicate sensibilities. Should she claim too much, our fragile male egos would be offended and we simply have to despise her. BTW, the men in this thread panicking over women claiming too much women stuff are seriously weak. You guys ought have a little pride than to be hurt by Hillary's fairly tame claims to female progress. // 32yo white male poster I personally have heard endless complaining about how overly "macho" trump and Cruz are being. It's not about our male egos. You are totally putting words in peoples mouths and thoughts in peoples heads that are not necessarily there. It is not okay for Hilary to say you should vote for her just because she is a woman just like it wouldn't be okay for Obama to be asking for votes from black people just because he is black. Personally I think that is a waste of time anyway because they don't need to say it. There are plenty of people that are going to vote for Hilary because she is female, and people that voted for Obama just because he is black, and people that are voting for Trump because they are xenophobic, and Cruz because they are religious etc. The candidates don't have to convince such people, and saying anything is just going to turn off other voters, so it's not doing them any favors in public opinion or votes in any way. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
On February 18 2016 10:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Yes yes, Bernie's campaign doesn't have to answer gender questions. But Hillary's does and necessarily has to. Like when Albright stepped over the offensive line and made claims about women supporting other women. We all freaked out that Hillary was making a gender play. Grand paens were written by men clutching their pearls that they might be excluded from an appeal and Hillary simply must repudiate her offensive gender politics. The line that Hillary has to tiptoe around does not exist for Bernie, and doesn't exist for the male Republican candidates. The "line" being that Hillary must not claim too much feminism lest she be accused of playing gender politics. I am not attacking Bernie here. I am trying to point out a systemic bias going on and provoke some posters here to question just why we have to have these discussions about Hillary being too feminist. But this isn't something that was imposed on her, nor are the instances people are complaining about (at least not from the left). Albright used a fine quote in a wrong way and got called out for it. Hillary is hiding behind an important problem with society to mask that people just don't want to support her. What's being defended against and what's actually happening are two different things (at least from the critiques on the left). | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 18 2016 09:55 Chewbacca. wrote: Pretty sure that a male candidates "maleness" doesn't come up because "I'm a man" isn't a key point of male candidates campaigns They talk about it all the time, you just don't notice. They say "I'm a father of two daughters," that they are a "loving husband". They talk about being a young man in college or being a "good son". They used the phrase "family man," and that they are "a man that understands hard work." They target male voters the exact same ways that Clinton targets women. The only reason you notice when Clinton does it is because she isn't targeting you. | ||
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On February 18 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote: They talk about it all the time, you just don't notice. They say "I'm a father of two daughters," that they are a "loving husband". They talk about being a young man in college or being a "good son". They used the phrase "family man," and that they are "a man that understands hard work." They target male voters the exact same ways that Clinton targets women. The only reason you notice when Clinton does it is because she isn't targeting you. And the candidates who use those lines never get any crap for them (openly gender based appeals). | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 18 2016 10:18 CannonsNCarriers wrote: And the candidates who use those lines never get any crap for them (openly gender based appeals). And then when they talk about a being a loving father and family man, they take the time to point out and thank their wife. Sometimes they bring the wife up on the stage at events too. I'm sure it just because all the wives throughout history 100% wanted to be there and not straight up pandering male voters wives. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
So my point is that it isn't playing a significant role in why she's losing to Bernie (at least as a result of anything he's doing) or (to a lesser degree) why she lost to Obama (although I think he called himself a father a lot). On February 18 2016 10:29 Plansix wrote: And then when they talk about a being a loving father and family man, they take the time to point out and thank their wife. Sometimes they bring the wife up on the stage at events too. I'm sure it just because all the wives throughout history 100% wanted to be there and not straight up pandering male voters wives. And Bernie's wife has long worked for his campaign and deserves more credit than she gets So the argument "but the republicans, so she has to..." falls flat in a primary atmosphere. | ||
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On February 18 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote: They talk about it all the time, you just don't notice. They say "I'm a father of two daughters," that they are a "loving husband". They talk about being a young man in college or being a "good son". They used the phrase "family man," and that they are "a man that understands hard work." They target male voters the exact same ways that Clinton targets women. The only reason you notice when Clinton does it is because she isn't targeting you. Aren't those quotes just meant to emphasize family and values? Maybe I just don't get it, but to me changing genders: "I'm a mother of two sons," "loving wife", being a young woman in college or being a "good daughter", "family woman" , "a woman that understands hard work." carry the exact same meaning. The only one that would sound weird is "family woman", probably because "family man" is used as an expression. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On February 18 2016 09:31 Simberto wrote: I don't vote for people based on their gender. I also don't think i have ever seen someone say "Vote for me because i am a man!" or anything along those lines. Or do you mean by "implicitly" "They don't actually say that, but some sexist people will prefer a man for being male". In that case, what you should be aiming for is for those people to stop being sexist, as opposed to some sort of "reverse sexism" (And yes, i know that that phrase is overused bei scummy MRA people, but i can't think of a better word to describe what i mean), where you demand that people vote for you only because you are female, and not because of your accomplishments, qualifications, or whatever else might be important. As i said, a good test is "Would it change my opinion if the genders were reversed" Imagine Bernadette Sanders vs Hugh Clinton. Does that change who you would vote for? If yes, than you are still influenced by the gender of people, which you really shouldn't if you do believe in the equality of man and woman. And for me, a candidate who focussed on that kind of identity as a selling point loses points (Not that they matter, as i obviously don't vote in the US anyways), because they are clearly missing a point that is important to me, namely a true belief in the equality of all persons. My bad simberto, i meant to quote plansix. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On February 18 2016 09:35 oneofthem wrote: this is a curious thought though. would you oppose say joe stiglitz because of his technocratic resume. more is required to draw hillary's particular offensive brand of wonkiness. I probably wouldn't vote for Stiglitz the Academy Trained Economist, but I might for Stiglitz the Human Being. Hillary is barely a real person. She buried Hillary the Human Being shortly after college, probably about the same time she made a deal to marry Bill. | ||
Acrofales
Spain17992 Posts
| ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 18 2016 10:38 Sbrubbles wrote: Aren't those quotes just meant to emphasize family and values? Maybe I just don't get it, but to me changing genders: "I'm a mother of two sons," "loving wife", being a young woman in college or being a "good daughter", "family woman" , "a woman that understands hard work." carry the exact same meaning. The only one that would sound weird is "family woman", probably because "family man" is used as an expression. They are to do both. They are efficient phrases, crafted over decades of politics. "I'm a loving father" should be followed by a "just like you," every time. It is to make the voter believe that the candidate is like them. We are not told the favorite beers of candidates because they want us to know, its to make them seem like "one of the guys". And when they want to market to women, they talk about who the candidate proposed to his wife, which shows he is sensitive, but not to much. Men understand that they did the same thing to propose to their wives, and its great that he is sharing it. Politics shamelessly panders to both men and women. We just don't really notice as much when its a man doing it because all of them do the same thing. On February 18 2016 10:45 IgnE wrote: My bad simberto, i meant to quote plansix. Male candidates pander to men all the time, they just don't catch much shit for it. | ||
Acrofales
Spain17992 Posts
On February 18 2016 10:50 IgnE wrote: I probably wouldn't vote for Stiglitz the Academy Trained Economist, but I might for Stiglitz the Human Being. Hillary is barely a real person. She buried Hillary the Human Being shortly after college, probably about the same time she made a deal to marry Bill. This is kinda dumb. I'd like a president to make an informed decision based on the good of the country, weighing the evidence and reasoning through the outcomes of some policy decision. Emotions obviously play a part in decision making, but I would like them to be tempered by someone I respect as an intellectual. Given the debates, I believe both Hillary and Bernie meet that bar. I have so far seen no spark of anything resembling intelligence from any of the Republicans, except perhaps Kasich, and we all know he's never going to win. Jeb! sometimes comes close. The rest range from shrewd to moronic. | ||
ErectedZenith
325 Posts
On February 18 2016 10:55 Acrofales wrote: I may very well be wrong here, but I don't think Hillary is trying to say "vote for me because I am a woman", but more "vote for me, because I understand the gender issues you all face, and in fact have fought against them for most of my life". She is pointing out her inherent, gender based advantage to women, who may very well be frustrated by many of the issues that Clinton has also had to overcome and is (presumably) committed to help other women overcome if she becomes president. Yeah good luck trying to get male voters from that message. And smart women can smell the pandering too. That's not a REAL platform message, she is not giving anything specific on her campaign. | ||
| ||