View Full Version : One-sided sexism is OK -- but only from the distaff.
W3MIV
03-26-2008, 10:22 PM
Imagine, if you will, the howl that would go up were Obama to call upon men to vote only for the man on the Democrats' primary ballots. Or the shrieks were he to call upon Blacks to vote only for the Black man on the ballot. Yet, it would seem, the lovely ladies get a free pass on such tactics:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/emilys-list-to-promote-clinton-in-philly/index.html?nl=pol&emc=pol
Emily’s List, the political action committee that works to get female candidates elected, plans to bombard women voters in the Philadelphia area with direct mailings and phone calls on behalf of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The independent group, which takes no money from the Clinton campaign but has been supporting her, is pursuing an estimated 150,000 Democratic female voters in southeast Pennsylvania, from early April through the state’s primary April 22. The group embarked on similar efforts ahead of the Ohio and Texas primaries, which Senator Clinton won.
...
Much of the Pennsylvania electorate — majority female, white, working class — is similar to that of Ohio where Mrs. Clinton did well among women without college degrees. Now the senator is gaining ground among Pennsylvania women with college degrees, said Maren Hesla, the director of Women Vote, the arm of Emily’s List sponsoring the ad campaign.
Winning Pennsylvania, and winning by a large margin, is important to the Clinton campaign’s plan to convince superdelegates that Mrs. Clinton is the best choice for the Democratic party in the general election, Ms. Hesla said.
After Geraldine Ferraro deprecated Obama's disadvantages as a Black in comparison with trials and burdens women endure in life's daily struggles, a statement I found incredible, BTW, would not a strong coalition of men urging purely sexist voting be seen as a fair reply? Or merely crude, misogynistic and anti-social behavior?
Am I alone is sensing a bit of hypocrisy among the Emilytarians?
Imagine, if you will, the howl that would go up were Obama to call upon men to vote only for the man on the Democrats' primary ballots. Or the shrieks were he to call upon Blacks to vote only for the Black man on the ballot. Yet, it would seem, the lovely ladies get a free pass on such tactics:
Am I alone is sensing a bit of hypocrisy among the Emilytarians?
It would be kind of like the howl you see here when some of you propose everyone back the Democratic candidate.
Imagine, if you will, the howl that would go up were Obama to call upon men to vote only for the man on the Democrats' primary ballots. Or the shrieks were he to call upon Blacks to vote only for the Black man on the ballot. Yet, it would seem, the lovely ladies get a free pass on such tactics:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/emilys-list-to-promote-clinton-in-philly/index.html?nl=pol&emc=pol
After Geraldine Ferraro deprecated Obama's disadvantages as a Black in comparison with trials and burdens women endure in life's daily struggles, a statement I found incredible, BTW, would not a strong coalition of men urging purely sexist voting be seen as a fair reply? Or merely crude, misogynistic and anti-social behavior?
Am I alone is sensing a bit of hypocrisy among the Emilytarians?
I don't know Albert.
Technically, white men are a minority too.
Shouldn't the same standards apply to all minorities, or do you need to have "special" minority status?
Ever wonder why breast cancer gets all the pub compared to all the rest?
Ever wonder why female sex offenders receive some sort of sick hero status for diddeling the the 15 year old boy and get slapped on the wrist compared to a male gym teacher who does the same thing to female student?
The female teacher get 30 days of house arrest and a spread in Playboy, the male teacher gets thrown to the wolves for 10 years minimum.
n2ize
03-27-2008, 02:41 PM
What does any of this have to do with a specific group who's goal it is to get a woman elected ? Its not reverse discrimination or anything like that. Just a specific group with a specific focus. You have just as much right to form a focus group aimed at getting an ultra conservative ultra pro war neanderthal elected.
n2ize
03-27-2008, 02:47 PM
I don't know Albert.
Technically, white men are a minority too.
Shouldn't the same standards apply to all minorities, or do you need to have "special" minority status?
It has to do with historical discrimination Historically blacks, women were targets of discrimination and have only recently begun to get equal rights.
Ever wonder why breast cancer gets all the pub compared to all the rest?
Maybe because it's an extremely prevalent and serious medical condition. Much like prostate cancer in men which is very prevalent and serious and gets a considerable amount of attention.
Ever wonder why female sex offenders receive some sort of sick hero status for diddeling the the 15 year old boy and get slapped on the wrist compared to a male gym teacher who does the same thing to female student?
Now female sex offenders are considered heros for molesting children ? I don;t know what country or planet you live on but you certainly don't live in the USA on planet Earth.
The female teacher get 30 days of house arrest and a spread in Playboy, the male teacher gets thrown to the wolves for 10 years minimum.
Uh ? I don't think so. Perhaps on your planet, not mine.
N9MOQ
03-27-2008, 02:58 PM
It would be kind of like the howl you see here when some of you propose everyone back the Democratic candidate.
Very good point.
Although we don't yet know the names, race or gender of the candidates for the 2016 election, we DO already know those that will pick the candidate that belongs to a specific party, regardless of who the person is.
In other words, many people have already made their decison for that election, and they know absolutely nothing about the candidate they will be voting for, not even a name.
And many people belong to a political party only because their parents belonged to it. Just like with religion.
If the democrat candidate ran as a republican, and the republican as a democrat, suddenly most people would have the exact opposite views of them, based only on the political party they run under. Because what they say, is exactly the same.
KP3FT
03-27-2008, 04:16 PM
What does any of this have to do with a specific group who's goal it is to get a woman elected ? Its not reverse discrimination or anything like that. Just a specific group with a specific focus. You have just as much right to form a focus group aimed at getting an ultra conservative ultra pro war neanderthal elected.
I think the point is the the absurdity of voting for a gender for the gender's sake, not voting for someone who shares your particular political stance. It makes as much sense as voting for only green-eyed people because they have green eyes...pretty shallow reasoning.
KD6NIG
03-27-2008, 04:22 PM
What does any of this have to do with a specific group who's goal it is to get a woman elected ? Its not reverse discrimination or anything like that. Just a specific group with a specific focus. You have just as much right to form a focus group aimed at getting an ultra conservative ultra pro war neanderthal elected.
I don't think a group of white guys telling all white guys to vote for McCain would go unnoticed.
As an example.
K0RGR
03-27-2008, 11:04 PM
What does any of this have to do with a specific group who's goal it is to get a woman elected ? Its not reverse discrimination or anything like that. Just a specific group with a specific focus. You have just as much right to form a focus group aimed at getting an ultra conservative ultra pro war neanderthal elected.
The right wing focus group already exists and it's called "The Republican Party". It is funded in large part by Richard Mellon Scaife of the Mellon Bank billions.
I don't think a group of white guys telling all white guys to vote for Ron Paul because he's white would go unnoticed.
As an example.
Fixed your post.