Do you want a women for President next year?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
because it objectifies women. it's ok for women to objectify themselves but not ok to enjoy the fruits of their labors whilst having a penis. but are we not off topic?

My argument was both sexes should be objectified and that it holds true to a feminist argument that objectification of humans for sexual gratification.. Notice my post used the word "person." Because objectification comes in degrees and it is not either "purely and unequivocally sexist and oppressive of women!!!" or "completely empowers women!" It's just not that simple. Some people may fap and do it for sexist reasons, others may do it because they are animals (humans like to forget we are animals, too). But if you want to start regulating masturbation and you want to ensure people's intentions behind their knuckle babies are just for sexual gratification, and not to oppress and degrade women, I highly recommend you start a political action committee. By the way, my argument in that other thread amounted to it not being objectification (being turned on by and being attracted to people). Objectification is just the wording being used to strawman the other position (my position).

And, no, sexism is really what this thread is about. When the only viable GOP candidates have to be "hot MILFs", it is pretty obvious that sexism and objectification taint the ability for a female presidential candidate to win?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, yes we are. Which topic are we in...oh okay.

So, while I think gender and race can play a role in decision making (which they have in the last 250 years anyways, i.e. you had to be white and male) and while it does play a role for me, I favor Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton

You favor a guy that wrote a essay on his gangbang rape fantasies? This shows me you are not really what you say you claim to be.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You favor a guy that wrote a essay on his gangbang rape fantasies? This shows me you are not really what you say you claim to be.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not really an accurate explanation of the essay. Also it's over 40 years old.

Doesn't matter. He wrote it, but since he's your guy, he gets a pass.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Doesn't matter. He wrote it, but since he's your guy, he gets a pass.

No, he gets a pass because a) the essay isn't about his rape fantasies, but a discussion about harmful gender roles b) the world has changed a lot since then and c) he and his campaign have distanced himself from it.

It's the same reason I gave Ron Paul a pass on his much worse, much more racist, newsletters and still viewed him as one of the best candidates (although i have since changed political stances somewhat).

I take it you didn't read the essay then.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I take it you didn't read the essay then.

No, I have, hence my more nuanced opinion. I am almost certain you haven't though, you obviously know nothing about the essay beyond the Fox News headline.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I have, hence my more nuanced opinion. I am almost certain you haven't though, you obviously know nothing about the essay beyond the Fox News headline.

I actually heard about it on NPR. 😆

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I actually heard about it on NPR. 😆

"heard"? So you did not read it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
"heard"? So you did not read it?

Thats how I heard about the essay, then I read it. Your downplaying what he wrote, in no way did his gangbang fantasy allude to anything else then what it said.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Thats how I heard about the essay, then I read it. Your downplaying what he wrote, in no way did his gangbang fantasy allude to anything else then what it said.

Just so we are clear what we are talking about:

It's very clear that these aren't "his" rape fantasies. He's talking about power dynamics between men and women based on how femininity and masculinity is defined, and the issues that arise because of it. I won't even deny that he doesn't do a great job of it, but you pretending it is some sort of erotic fiction doesn't do it justice in the least.

Oh your right, if Bush had wrote that, he would be a hero.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think some of the people arguing something like "vote for the most qualified"/"vote for the best", and people that say that gender shouldn't play a role make the mistake of disregarding that gender is an aspect of being most qualified and/or the best candidate in a case.

How is this not sexist then? I mean, you realize what you just said is the stuff women complain about men thinking? In terms of their gender making them more qualified for things.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh your right, if Bush had wrote that, he would be a hero.

Yes, those are the two options, the person who wrote that, regardless of anything else they do in their life, is either a filthy pervert with disgusting rape fantasies or a shining hero.

Originally posted by Surtur
How is this not sexist then? I mean, you realize what you just said is the stuff women complain about men thinking?

First, this is really just counteracting the biases in selecting what to focus on, a woman may be more likely to be aware of women issues, and a black man more likely to be aware of race issues, because they have to consciously deal with the hardships that the power dynamic has created. Potentially there may be a white man that better understands the struggles a black single mother in a poor black neighbourhood faces better than anyone, but it is somewhat unlikely and hard to quantify, while literally everyone understands the white male experience (because it is the default in the media and everywhere). How important it is to you that a president understands a large number of the people he or she represents you have to decide for yourself.

And secondly, here I'll reveal my ideology, to me racism and sexism are not synonyms for "prejudice because of race" or "prejudice because of gender", sexism and racism to me are much larger concepts that add a structural component to it (i.e. racism is prejudice plus power). For me for something to be racist it has to be perpetrated against a disadvantaged group, a group that does not have systemic power as opposed to its oppressors. Though I don't really want to argue this definition, so lets just go with my first point.

But then the question comes down to: okay, a woman would be more aware of female issues. So, are female issues the biggest problems in the country as of now?

Originally posted by Surtur
But then the question comes down to: okay, a woman would be more aware of female issues. So, are female issues the biggest problems in the country as of now?

They are not the biggest, but they are big issues. At any rate while a woman will likely be more aware of women's issues it doesn't mean she's less aware of other issues. Which brings us exactly to my point, the gender of the candidate can be one aspect of decision making, but like everyone else, I don't even think it should be a major aspect.

So a woman will be more away of female issues, but not less aware of other issues. But a man(who isn't a minority) will only be as aware of certain issues, but less aware of others. Am I summing this up correctly?

Originally posted by Surtur
So a woman will be more away of female issues, but not less aware of other issues. But a man(who isn't a minority) will only be as aware of certain issues, but less aware of others. Am I summing this up correctly?

If we take two candidates, a man and a woman, and look at all issues except for woman's issues, and they are exactly the same on all of them, then the woman would likely be the better candidate as she is likely to be more aware and knowledgable about women's issues.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If we take two candidates, a man and a woman, and look at all issues except for woman's issues, and they are exactly the same on all of them, then the woman would likely be the better candidate as she is likely to be more aware and knowledgable about women's issues.

But then you could of just said yes I summed it up correctly.

I also want to mention that what candidate is selected sends a meta-message.

If you tell people, "You can be anything, even president!" but there are no actual presidents of your group, and when someone tries, people go, "Oh, people

If you tell people, "You can be anything, even president!" and people actually are president of your group, it sends the message that they can actually be president, which encourages more people to try, which expands the talent pool from which presidents are drawn from. It may not pay off for decades, but it's likely to pay off.

There's thus a good long-term reason to use the meta-message a candidate sends as a tie breaker. Even if it's not something they themselves are consciously doing, electing a president is in part about the message we as a country wish to send about who we are.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If we take two candidates, a man and a woman, and look at all issues except for woman's issues, and they are exactly the same on all of them, then the woman would likely be the better candidate as she is likely to be more aware and knowledgable about women's issues.

And, if someone is more aware of issues that aren't much of a concern at the moment, that isn't much help. There's a couple women's issues that are active at the moment, pay gap and all that, so there is a reason to want someone knowledge about those specifically, more so than issues that are not currently being debated.

Like, if a candidate is good at running a healthy economy and you're in a recovery, that's less useful than someone who knows recoveries.

If a candidate is a doctor who knows health care, that's more useful if health care reform is a major issue at the moment. But if everyone's happy with health care, who cares?

Someone who knows the hispanic immigrant situation has a much more relevant specialty than someone who knows the Irish-American situation in equal depth, because how to treat Irish Americans is not a particularly on topic issue at the moment. Go back a hundred years ago and the situation is different.

Gender and minority issues are a topic being grappled with right now. There is thus specific reason to have someone with greater familiarity on them.

Thus on balance, I'd pick Marco Rubio, who's hispanic, or Jeb Bush, who is white but has a history of dealing with hispanics showing he has reasonable familiarity, over one of the Republican candidates who show no particular knowledge in the area. Or Trump, who shows, like, anti-knowledge of the area.

And similarly, Hillary has greater experience and knowledge of gender issues facing women than most of her opponents, so that's a point in her favor.