Politics & Gender

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Jackwc
Queen Of The Forums



Location: Aaaanywhere Sex: Incredible
Canada

  • #1
  • Posted: 11/14/2012 07:59
  • Post subject: Politics & Gender
  • Reply with quote
Thought this thread might as well exist, as I don't think this belongs in the sex thread.

K, so, around the time of the debates the election I saw a really interesting piece on, of all shows, The Daily Show.

It focused on comments such as:
"The Fox News stable of commentators seemed to think that women would be turned off by Biden’s aggressiveness and demeanor."
...and pointed out just how often in politics, when talking about female voters, terms like "turned off" or "turned on" are so commonly used.
In fact, whenever women voters are talked about in the media it seems to be clear that the media believes that women vote entirely on which candidate they'd prefer to fuck. I mean, "turned off by Biden’s aggressiveness demeanor"? What the fuck does that even mean? Are they suggesting women can't handle assertion and would vote against a candidate simply because of it? Are women just "too stupid" to make proper, intellectual decisions?
_________________
A dick that's bigger than the sun.

Music sucks. Check out my favourite movies, fam:
http://letterboxd.com/jackiegigantic/
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
HigherThanTheSun



Gender: Male
Age: 32
Location: UK
United Kingdom

  • #2
  • Posted: 11/15/2012 17:08
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Yeah, politicians and political commentators constantly talk down to women. They'll come up with hundreds of reasons why women will or will not be voting for a certain candidate (as if women vote as a bloc anyway), other than the women making informed decisions based on policies.
_________________
Shut up mate you're boring!
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Guest





  • #3
  • Posted: 11/16/2012 00:46
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Ah yes... the 'female demographic'.... Rolling Eyes

When I cast my first vote it was expected that women would vote the same as their menfolk (No minds of their own and only able to do what the lord and master tells them.. Rolling Eyes ). 20 or so years later, women are assumed to vote with their vaginas (SERIOUSLY.... have these people ever actually looked at the average politician?).

It's all a bit stupid.

I (and assume many billion women like me who are lucky enough to have the vote... something men kept from them for a long long time (and are still keeping from them) for many of the reasons that are now used to classify female voters in the media ) vote for policies. Politicians who think that praying is a viable economic policy will not get my vote no matter how 'hot' or 'in touch with their feminine side' they are, nor will the 'ethnic minority' dude who wants to dismantle the health service, nor the female one who thinks anyone without 6 jobs is a 'dole bludger' nor the fat guy who wants to turn a National Park into an oil refinery...

Hopefully one day the media will catch up and stop belittling women and credit them with individual minds of their own, able to decide for themselves about political issues that matter to them.
Back to top
Kool Keith Sweat





  • #4
  • Posted: 07/10/2013 01:40
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Not necessarily political, but here's a few things, old and new, going on with gender issues.

An 'unscripted' scene with Keira Knightley on domestic violence (this video is disturbing)
http://www.upworthy.com/a-famous-actres...-recognize

Dustin Hoffman cries upon a realization gained from his role in Tootsie
http://www.upworthy.com/dustin-hoffman-...erienced-3

and for the more political stuff...

US congresswomen temporarily banned from the floor for saying vagina in an abortion debate
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ju...ord-vagina

US abortion laws are becoming more stringent, with many midwest states (S. Dakota at the forefront) continually restricting the time frame for legal abortion. In the great state of Texas, Satan governor Rick Perry has called yet another special session to pass a bill which will effectively limit the number of abortion clinics in Texas to five; this is after the special session which Wendy Davis filibustered for 11 hours.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201...chnicality

and lastly an oldie but goodie, Australian prime minister Gillard beats down a politician

Link
Back to top
EyeKanFly
Head Bear Master/Galactic Emperor



Age: 33
Location: Gotham
United States

  • #5
  • Posted: 07/11/2013 20:13
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
ppnw wrote:
US congresswomen temporarily banned from the floor for saying vagina in an abortion debate
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ju...ord-vagina

US abortion laws are becoming more stringent, with many midwest states (S. Dakota at the forefront) continually restricting the time frame for legal abortion. In the great state of Texas, Satan governor Rick Perry has called yet another special session to pass a bill which will effectively limit the number of abortion clinics in Texas to five; this is after the special session which Wendy Davis filibustered for 11 hours.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201...chnicality


Both of these cases were absolutely ridiculous. And as much as I disagree with the concept of a filibuster, the whole situation of abortion in Texas is just so goddamn fucked up (not necessarily that I'm saying the political decisions are bad, I'm just saying it's a huge clusterfuck of yelling and disagreeing with each other).

Honestly the biggest problem I see involving "politics & gender" (in the US at least, can't say for other countries) is a lack of diversity in politics. I mean, the majority of politicians in America are rich white males, and as far as the overall demographics of the country are concerned, rich white males are not a majority. With people with different needs from different backgrounds in government together, we have a better chance at addressing more of our country's issues and providing solutions which would benefit us most. Anyway, the lack of females (and hispanic people, gay people, black people, non-wealthy people, etc.) in American politics incredibly disturbing. With issues like abortion and gay marriage how can we leave it up to only rich heterosexual white men to make decisions?

I think the problem stems from the US government being founded by rich white men, and that we've done very little to update our system of government for modern times and a more diverse group of people.
_________________
51 Washington, D.C. albums!
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
RockyRaccoon
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?


Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Maryland
United States
Moderator

  • #6
  • Posted: 07/12/2013 13:10
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
EyeKanFly wrote:

Honestly the biggest problem I see involving "politics & gender" (in the US at least, can't say for other countries) is a lack of diversity in politics. I mean, the majority of politicians in America are rich white males, and as far as the overall demographics of the country are concerned, rich white males are not a majority. With people with different needs from different backgrounds in government together, we have a better chance at addressing more of our country's issues and providing solutions which would benefit us most. Anyway, the lack of females (and hispanic people, gay people, black people, non-wealthy people, etc.) in American politics incredibly disturbing. With issues like abortion and gay marriage how can we leave it up to only rich heterosexual white men to make decisions?

I think the problem stems from the US government being founded by rich white men, and that we've done very little to update our system of government for modern times and a more diverse group of people.


I completely agree with you. The problem is, to change this, you'd have to change a lot of things about politics. First, you'd have to make it cheaper to campaign, because if you want to run for Congress, you need to have a fair amount of money in order to campaign and have any kind of hope. Second, I think, you'd have to lower Congress' salary. They don't need to be making $174,000 a year. Lower the salary and maybe you'll start getting some people who care more about the job than the money. Unfortunately, I don't ever see any of that happening. Campaigning is always going to be expensive and good luck getting Congress to get paid less.

I definitely think you're right though, a racial, gender and socioeconomic diversity in Congress is important, and we have basically none of that. As of now, Congress may represent the people, but it is not representative of the population.
_________________
2023 Chart

Early Psychedelic Rock

Electronic Chart
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Guest





  • #7
  • Posted: 07/12/2013 13:54
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
EyeKanFly wrote:
Both of these cases were absolutely ridiculous. And as much as I disagree with the concept of a filibuster, the whole situation of abortion in Texas is just so goddamn fucked up (not necessarily that I'm saying the political decisions are bad, I'm just saying it's a huge clusterfuck of yelling and disagreeing with each other).

Honestly the biggest problem I see involving "politics & gender" (in the US at least, can't say for other countries) is a lack of diversity in politics. I mean, the majority of politicians in America are rich white males, and as far as the overall demographics of the country are concerned, rich white males are not a majority. With people with different needs from different backgrounds in government together, we have a better chance at addressing more of our country's issues and providing solutions which would benefit us most. Anyway, the lack of females (and hispanic people, gay people, black people, non-wealthy people, etc.) in American politics incredibly disturbing. With issues like abortion and gay marriage how can we leave it up to only rich heterosexual white men to make decisions?

I think the problem stems from the US government being founded by rich white men, and that we've done very little to update our system of government for modern times and a more diverse group of people.


I agree. However, I wouldn't count on this happening. The country is run by rich, white, heterosexual, Christian males, and it always has been. It doesn't resonate with them to tell them that bringing more demographics into the government would help us better understand the issues of women and minorities because they aren't women or minorities. Most of them either don't care about women and minorities, or they think they do, but the ideals of past generations have been so beaten into their skulls that they don't even recognize how their stances can be harmful to other demographics (just look at the hordes of racists, misogynists, homophobes, and Christian elitists in government today who boast about their belief in equality for everyone).

The good news is, I think this is slowly changing. It seems to me that the vast majority of people of our generation support gay marriage (this may be a consequence of the people with whom I choose to surround myself, but this is certainly the way it appears to me). Abortion is a little more iffy, but even there we seem to be on an upward incline. We can always hope, at least.
Back to top
HigherThanTheSun



Gender: Male
Age: 32
Location: UK
United Kingdom

  • #8
  • Posted: 07/12/2013 14:28
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Problem is rich white males have the edge in pretty much any profession or walk of life in the US, the elected politicians just happen to be the most obvious representation of that.

Having elected representatives that truly represent the population, as in have roughly the same demographic makeup as that of the population, would be great and is definitely something to aspire to, but only if it's a true reflection of equal opportunity in society and isn't deliberately engineered just to look like that. What I mean is that it would be great if people with all different backgrounds had an equal chance in politics and any other profession but we shouldn't rely on positive discrimination to get there but address the barriers that stop people with different backgrounds getting on in the first place.

Positive discrimination is especially cynical in politics and all parties in the UK have been trying it over the last decade or so to make them look more attractive to certain groups of voters but really it's just airbrushing over the issues which are still there. I'm talking about all-women shortlists for constituency candidates and stuff like that, they shouldn't be needed if the parties weren't so sexist and the barriers for women getting into politics weren't so great to begin with.
_________________
Shut up mate you're boring!
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
RockyRaccoon
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?


Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Maryland
United States
Moderator

  • #9
  • Posted: 07/12/2013 14:58
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
"...one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

-Douglas Adams
_________________
2023 Chart

Early Psychedelic Rock

Electronic Chart
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
EyeKanFly
Head Bear Master/Galactic Emperor



Age: 33
Location: Gotham
United States

  • #10
  • Posted: 07/12/2013 15:11
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
RockyRaccoon wrote:
I completely agree with you. The problem is, to change this, you'd have to change a lot of things about politics. First, you'd have to make it cheaper to campaign, because if you want to run for Congress, you need to have a fair amount of money in order to campaign and have any kind of hope. Second, I think, you'd have to lower Congress' salary. They don't need to be making $174,000 a year. Lower the salary and maybe you'll start getting some people who care more about the job than the money. Unfortunately, I don't ever see any of that happening. Campaigning is always going to be expensive and good luck getting Congress to get paid less.

I definitely think you're right though, a racial, gender and socioeconomic diversity in Congress is important, and we have basically none of that. As of now, Congress may represent the people, but it is not representative of the population.


I can think of one way to make campaigning cheaper: ban print/television/radio advertisements and home phone calls. I understand that traveling and visiting cities is important to campaigning, and I've had intense discussions with people over whether campaigning is necessary or not, so I'm gonna try not to get into that.

swedenman wrote:
I agree. However, I wouldn't count on this happening. The country is run by rich, white, heterosexual, Christian males, and it always has been. It doesn't resonate with them to tell them that bringing more demographics into the government would help us better understand the issues of women and minorities because they aren't women or minorities. Most of them either don't care about women and minorities, or they think they do, but the ideals of past generations have been so beaten into their skulls that they don't even recognize how their stances can be harmful to other demographics (just look at the hordes of racists, misogynists, homophobes, and Christian elitists in government today who boast about their belief in equality for everyone).

The good news is, I think this is slowly changing. It seems to me that the vast majority of people of our generation support gay marriage (this may be a consequence of the people with whom I choose to surround myself, but this is certainly the way it appears to me). Abortion is a little more iffy, but even there we seem to be on an upward incline. We can always hope, at least.


Forgot about Christian Laughing

I agree, slowly. I think part of the problem is that the age range of people involved in government is old. To use the senate as an example: you need to be 30 to be a US senator, but the low end of senators is 40 years old. The average age of senators is 62, and the average age for entering the senate is 50. It makes sense since politics is often something people do after they've made money and established themselves, but seriously, we have 80-something year olds in our senate. When my grandpa was 80 we barely trusted him to walk around on his own. While our generation will eventually be the one in power of the government, then we may fall to oppressing or ignoring the next generation. It's a tough cycle, and a huge problem since government values the elderly disproportionately more than the youth (from what I've seen).

HigherThanTheSun wrote:
Problem is rich white males have the edge in pretty much any profession or walk of life in the US, the elected politicians just happen to be the most obvious representation of that.

Having elected representatives that truly represent the population, as in have roughly the same demographic makeup as that of the population, would be great and is definitely something to aspire to, but only if it's a true reflection of equal opportunity in society and isn't deliberately engineered just to look like that. What I mean is that it would be great if people with all different backgrounds had an equal chance in politics and any other profession but we shouldn't rely on positive discrimination to get there but address the barriers that stop people with different backgrounds getting on in the first place.

Positive discrimination is especially cynical in politics and all parties in the UK have been trying it over the last decade or so to make them look more attractive to certain groups of voters but really it's just airbrushing over the issues which are still there. I'm talking about all-women shortlists for constituency candidates and stuff like that, they shouldn't be needed if the parties weren't so sexist and the barriers for women getting into politics weren't so great to begin with.


Yes, it can't be like a politically correct clothing clothing advertisement, we shouldn't just elect/pick government members because we want more women/gays/hispanic people involved in government, but we should look harder at ways to get these demographics more involved in politics.

And yes, positive discrimination is a problem in the US too. I've seen television advertisements that say something like "Candidate X has a wife and daughter, so he knows the true needs of a woman. Female voters for Candidate X". Seriously?
_________________
51 Washington, D.C. albums!
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6


 

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum
Sticky: Why a separate 'religion & politi... albummaster Politics & Religion
Gender of Your Best of Charts. qwert9579 Music
Gender Equality Guest Lounge
[ Poll ] Music taste according to gender Guest Music
The Gender Identity and Transgender T... Revolution909 Lounge

 
Back to Top