2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumGo ahead and vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/15/go-ahead-and-vote-for-hillary-clinton-because-she-is-a-woman?CMP=twt_guWhen it comes to women in politics, the United States is pretty much the pits. Women make up half the population in this country but hold less than 20% of Congressional seats and comprise less than 25% of state legislators. The numbers for women of color are even more dismal.
On the world stage, the US ranks 72nd in womens political participation, far worse than most industrialized countries and with numbers similar to Saudi Arabias. A United Nations working group late last year called attention to this disparity in a report that found massive discrimination against women across the board, an overall picture of womens missing rights.
And so it seems strange that at a time when the country has the opportunity to elect the first woman president, the idea that gender might be a factor is considered shallow in some circles.
Only in a sexist society would women be told that caring about representation at the highest levels of government is wrong. Only in a sexist society would women believe it.
There has been an extraordinary amount of scorn both from the right and from Bernie Sanders supporters around the notion that Hillary Clinton and women planning on voting for her are playing the gender card. The criticism comes in part from Clintons unabashed embrace of womens issues as a central part of her presidential campaign, and in part lets be frank simply because Clinton is a woman.
(more) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/15/go-ahead-and-vote-for-hillary-clinton-because-she-is-a-woman?CMP=twt_gu
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)and just when a woman is involved it happens, why in the hell do we vote for lesser qualified men?
mcar
(42,302 posts)But we mustn't play the "gender card."
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Must make others feel better, would not want to hurt any feelings here.
cali
(114,904 posts)And I believe there are very few who are only voting for her because of her gender
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)The details as was said on Larry O'Donnel last night are appalling. Too many "Gates" As the saying goes... Hillary because of this and other "foibles"/ poor decisions and judgements along the more than 30 years of public performance will attract a very significant cohort of people to specifically vote against her should she become the nominee.
Why risk it when we have a generational opportunity with Bernie Sanders? Makes no sense at all.
mog75
(109 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)It couldn't be that she is a pathological liar who has no demonstrated core beliefs she isn't willing to throw away for the next political attack? Nope must be because liberals are opposed to strong supporters of women's issues and are afraid of women. That's why Sanders holds a substantial lead with millenial women, who reject the idea of voting in consideration of gender.
mog75
(109 posts)JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)Voting for a man because he's a man is wrong, but voting for a woman because she's a woman is not only okay, it's praiseworthy.
I'm sure you will say that voting for a woman because she is a woman is necessary because of all the years that we have been voting for men because they were men.
That argues that we right one wrong by commiting another, offsetting wrong, which is morally reprehensible and prohibited by law. That argument would justify sending white people to the back of the bus and denying them access, and that was never the goal of the civil rights movement. Righting the wrong of racial injustice did not call for making whites lesser than people of color, and ending gender injustice should never call for making men unelectable.
Voting for Hillary because the women's rights issues which she embraces are important to you? Sure, that is a moral and legitimate manner in which to make your choice. But to vote for her merely because she is a woman? That choice is no better than the ones society has been making of selecting men because they were men.
[img][/img]
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)On Fri Jan 15, 2016, 12:08 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1010263
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This insult is to a reasonable reply. Using an image to attack doesn't make it any less of an attack.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 15, 2016, 12:25 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Voting to leave. I don't consider this a violation of DU rules but does make boo seem incapable of making an intelligent counterpoint to a very rational comment.
Poster of intelligent comment wins!
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It's an attack, and I think the offending poster knows better. Voting for Mrs. Clinton "because she is a woman" is not (I hope) the only reason to vote for her. I doubt BooScout would vote for Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann or Carly Fiorina simply because each of them is a woman. I doubt that's the only reason she's voting for Hillary Clinton, too. I oppose Mrs. Clinton, but not because I am a narrow-minded misogynist who would never vote for any woman.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A comical response to someone pretending to lack understanding of a very simple and obvious premise is not too hide-worth of an action. Moral of this Jurist: If you're going to pretend to be stupid, don't be surprised when you get called as much in a comical manner.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
I would like that on a shirt.
Hekate
(90,645 posts)Oh, so much. I want that T shirt.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)I'm willing to wait 4 or 8 years for a chance to help make Warren the first female president.
This year, I'm voting for Bernie Sanders in my state's caucus.
oasis
(49,376 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)[img][/img]
eridani
(51,907 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Again with the insult to women who should it appears vote ONLY for gender, ignoring everything else, Hillary's support for eternal war, eg, no one who cares about WOMEN could possibly be so fond off war.
And her participation in getting one of the worst and most damaging-to-women pieces of legislation passed, the awful Welfare Reform Bill the results of which are still being felt by the poorest women and their children.
Her 'pull up your bootstraps and take responsibility' rhetoric to poor women and children outdid those on the Right plus the dog whistling appeal to bigots who wrongfully assume that it is AA women who mostly collect welfare.
What a terribly sexist article this is, to assume women are so stupid they will ignore who best represents their issues and go for the 'woman'!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But then please let's stop with the "how dare anyone suggest that anyone is voting for HRC because she's a woman! Harumph!" nonsense.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)are ready for a Woman President...just not this one.
When we get a Woman President, I want her to measure up to Kennedy and Obama as an example to other women. We can do better than HRC and I can sure as heck wait for the Right One to come along.
This time, I'll settle for the first Jewish President (I think??).
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Bernie clearly does not see Obama as a example to follow. Bernie did not like Kennedy either.
DirtyHippyBastard
(217 posts)But Bernie is the one you are worried about hurting Obama's legacy. Cool story bro.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Kennedy was in 1960. They don't have to have a love fest. Bernie is 2016. The point of the post was...Firsts. Ceilings broken through. President Sanders may not like the next president who will probably be a woman, but that's irrelevant. She will be a First...nonetheless.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Hill taints that with all of her scandals and outright hostility to BLM.
djean111
(14,255 posts)The only way that this argument would be anywhere near valid is if all of the candidates were pretty much the same when it came to issues, records, policy. In this case - no, the candidates are not anywhere close to being the same.
So I will pass. And vote for Bernie.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I write in Warren for POTUS in the general.
Still a vote for a woman, but at least she would make a good POTUS.
You ok with this plan?