That would fall under qualified republican in my previous answer, meaning it would take some research and calculation.

Sew buttons. I doubt it. That said, the ones that do run are probably better due to the sexism resistance they know they'll face, or something like that.

Your feelings are noted, but incorrect.

No, you're incorrect. Check. Your move.

You're correct that women do better when they run than men do but research shows that this is because women are simply better candidates, in large part because they have to do so much more than men to be viewed as credible and/or electable.

Women have to work harder to get to the point of running for office in the first place and they work harder and are more effective once they are elected. Max might not have had direct evidence for his view but his intuition is entirely accurate. This is a good article with many links to peer reviewed papers and other research into factors that impact women in politics.

https://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-s...achment-jurors

This paragraph in particular is a great summary imo:

If you want to argue that women have to work harder in politics to get to the same place as men, then that is probably an argument worth making.

But given the reality you just outlined, along with the reality that there are plenty of examples of competent women at all levels of politics (except specifically the POTUS), and a woman actually won the popular vote in 2016; the argument that the fact a women has never been president illustrates some societal moral failing that needs to be addressed through positive discrimination seems like a false one.

I'm only making the former argument though and it is pretty much indisputable that it is harder for women to succeed in politics than it is for men. The only thing that I would consider in the way of "positive discrimination" would be that if candidates appear to be fairly close in terms of competency then I would almost certainly vote for the woman, both because she will almost certainly have worked harder to reach that position and is also likely to do a better job if elected.

While writing this I realised there's something resembling a largely subconscious Bayesian analysis behind my views on this as much as a belief that a woman should be president. If a man and a woman appear to be of equal competency then given we know that it is harder for a woman to reach the position in the first place we can conclude that the woman is more likely to be the better candidate.

Aside from Max though I don't think anyone has seriously suggested that gender of a candidate is the most important thing in their decision of who they would vote for, and even Max has made clear that it's not the only important aspect to him either it just might rank higher on his priority list than most people's.

What do you make of the fact a women has never been president? 58-0

Of the fact that there have been 325 women elected to the US House of Representatives out of 11,000 people elected?

How about 57 of 2,000 Senators?

The fact that right now only 23% of U.S. Representatives and 26% of the U.S. Senate are female?


LOL plenty of examples. LOL no social moral failing here folks. Move along.

Don’t forget the Russians. Racism is probably a factor too.

grunching. i think it's time for a woman to be president and maybe well happen soon.

it might need white women to make a stand for wanting this and factoring it into their voting..... i think white men are significant republican-tilt..... and of course, something that is barely ever mentioned in trump vs. hillary and trump vs. new democrat candidate is turnout. who actually votes.

britain, germany had women pm's recently... all 4 of the most prominent canadian provinces had women premiers recently.... so i think it's do-able

That is actually higher than I thought. Given historical precedent these numbers actually sound pretty damn good. I think we collectively should give ourselves a pat on the back for a job well done in promoting gender equity of opportunity in politics.

Of course it is doable. A woman won the popular vote 2 years ago. ~25% of our national representatives in Congress are women. There are several women on the Supreme Court.

You would think we were Iran or Japan, the narrative of gender bias is so disconnected from the reality.

Lagtight said women are underrepresented because they don’t run as much as men and you said he is both wrong and sexist. I asked you why you thought his opinion is sexist, but you seemed to have read my question as if I asked why you think his opinion is wrong.

I’m not disagreeing with you that he may be wrong so forget about him being wrong or right. I am asking why you think his position is sexist.

Yeah, historically there has been an absolute ****-ton of sexual discrimination. You hold the sexist position that we should take our foot off the gas now with women still significantly underrepresented?

It being do-able does not make it right. There being examples of worse, including our own U.S. history, does not make it right. That reasoning is sexist.

What is sexist is using is using faulty reasons to dismiss the notion that damaging sexism exists and is important to fight against.

I don’t think that should qualify as sexist. In the same way I don’t think it is racist to say the reason minorities are underrepresented as CEOs of Fortune 500 companies has far less to do with the boards of those Fortune 500 being racist and more to do with racism minorities face prior to the decision boards make. No matter if this or lagtights position are right or wrong it doesn’t make those opinions sexist or racist.

If he is saying we shouldn’t do anything to help women become elected more because it is their fault they aren’t running more then that is a problem and he is likely wrong, but I don’t think that is a sexist position.

Your analogy does not fit with what he posted because it is not dismissing racism as a significant factor.

Calling faulty reasoning sexist/etc is always going to be silly but there's a huge difference between a claiming a group are discriminated against further down the ladder as the reason for not enough making it to the top vs claiming it was some choice by the group not to get involved earlier.

It's not always silly. Faulty logic is used by sexists all the time to dismiss sexism. While I agree not all users of faulty logic in this context are necessarily sexist, the ones that use it after being told are more likely to be using it in bad-faith.

not gonna happen
you're not getting a woman president until 2024
the us is too sexist racist and transphobic for 2020
2024-32:

well yes sexist and faulty reasoning -> sexist
ldo

I likely mis-understood his argument. Either way point taken. Thanks.

The whole argument between you 2 reminded me of when I said the boards of fortune 500s aren't racist and that it was actually the fault of other factors including racism earlier in people's careers and multiple posters on 2+2 said I was racist for holding that view. It shouldn't surprise you that this exchange too place in the in the old echo chamber.

It is probably an incorrect view to think think there isn't racism in the boardrooms and that doesn't suppress the number of minority CEOs to some degree, but also I agree it's probably more affected by other institutional racism.

Yellowback, like everything you lash out about, you are scared of them leading AND scared to admit it. But, you don't need to be scared, because all the horrible stories you've been told are just that, stories. They'll fix it and even though you may be a lost cause, your children will enjoy the fruits of their persistence.

one can choose between voting for

a) a symbolic representation of the group/class/gender/ethnicity/religion that you primarily care about helping or of the tradition/culture that you want to be promoted (e.g. by voting based on gender of the candidate)

or

b) someone who will help the group/class/gender/ethnicity/religion that you primarily care about helping or will promote the tradition/culture that you primarily care about promoting (which requires information and knowledge and opinion on the candidate, their politics and how the world works)


It should go without saying that a and b are logically independant: A given candidate can be one or the other or neither or both.