The women on the GOP have proved being a woman simply isn't enough to be a good candidate; there's crazies and bought politicians on both sides of the arena.
We need people that can take our country back to normalcy and somewhere even better after that. If they happen to be female too, that's even better.
Voting for women for the sake of voting for a woman is a bad idea.
On the flipside there's nothing wrong with encouraging more women to run for office, just don't vote for them unless they have goals that you think will be good for the country and have the drive to do it without succumbing to corruption or letting their goals become compromised.
Text book case of demagoguery at work.
Not voting for women for the sake of not voting for women isn't the opposite of voting for women for the sake of voting for women, it's the same shit in a different direction.
Don't vote for anything for the sake of anything besides the betterment of your country.
Pushing anyone into politics just because there isn't enough of them will just lead to unfit politicians, and remember someone doesn't have to be a woman/black/trans/whatever in order to represent and further the interests of said group. Don't lock a man out of feminist movements because he is a man, don't lock a woman out of political movements because she is a woman, and don't vote for either just because of their gender.
Voting for women just because they are women isn't a thing lol.
If you are moved to vote for a woman instead of a man it is for logical reasons such as women candidates having a better knowledge of policies that will help women. This will stop insane cabinet meetings where it's just 20 men discussing women's health issues.
Side note, the logical conclusion to this situation would be to get some doctors with expertise in the field in to help you.
I think that's broadly a good thing. A country should have their elected officials that are more representative of the population they're a part of.
I dunno, I think a good man would be better than a bad woman.
As to who's better, a good woman or a good man I'd have to see where the heart for each candidate lies and how trustworthy their track record is.
well yeah that's why I prefaced it with broadly speaking.
Not really sure where the "voting for the sake of being a woman" posts are coming from when all the article doing is pointing out the trend, not that there's an actual formal push.
Oh boy I can't wait for this to be a huge divisive issue that drives deep wedges into an already barely defined party held together by not much else most of the time than 'The Republicans are just really shit okay'
Men were the default because men didn't have a tendency to die in their 20's creating a power vacuum due to childbirth. Women couldn't officially hold positions of power but they were influential on their husbands.
Yeah, that's the only reason, right
Huh then the preamble is misleading because "drive" seems to imply "an active push towards" as opposed to "changing circumstances have lead to"
To be fair, the article does mention EMILY's List, although it's just a single line an an article otherwise focusing on statistical outcomes. The headline is pretty eh in that regard.
What happens when we DO get a female president, let's say she's a democrat, and we get a great deal of women in office? What then will they strive for when their biggest faux progressive push is gone? Just back to being "Not as bad as the GOP!"?
No but that's why history turned out the way it did.
Really hope this doesn't backfire on them. I could see this easily causing the nomination of less likeable and less qualified nominees if handled incorrectly. As much as I despise the Democrats, we really fucking need them to get voted in right now.
What does a better platform even mean? Isn't that entirely subjective? Why would people be getting votes solely due to their gender? Don't we have ample evidence showing that candidates can be wildly unpopular regardless of their gender? This is a weird post.
Pretty sure religion had a part in it, too, at least for most western civilizations.
congratulations, you found a specific example of a terrible female politician?
this one piece of shit clearly represents all female politicians. thank you for your insight
I think a lot of this is a reflection of the fact that the anti-Trump movement is predominantly female, and that's where the energy and enthusiasm is, both in terms of voting and candidate recruitment. Many/most men still support Trump.
There is Dilma rousseff who singlehandedly murdered Brazil's economy and entire political system. There's also Theresa May who's trying to do just the same and finally any person in congress or the house of reps is crooked in some way or form otherwise they wouldn't have their position. I'm going to say Hillary is bad and then chuck that can of worms out the window.
I'm not against the idea of a female leader its just the ones we have aren't setting any good precedents. One exception would be Michelle Obama seeing as Barack frequently asked for her council but she isn't technically a politician so ehhhhh.
And this stands in stark contrast to all the great male leaders in the world right now like Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Bashar al-Assad, and Kim Jong-un
I'm not against the idea of a male leader its just the ones we have aren't setting any good precedents
(mostly black) women saved alabama from roy moore, maybe theyll save america from the GOP
Y'know, I have no idea how by this point, people haven't caught on to the fact that choosing people for whatever based on gender quotas and the likes of it, is a terrible idea that impedes progress. Really, it baffles my mind that people even bring the "oh is it because its a woman?!" idea to the table.
But then again, there still are people who wouldn't elect someone because of gender alone, despite being more than adequate so... In other words, we're fucked.
Elizabeth Warren is pretty great, last I checked!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.