Politics & Gender

[Guest]

[HigherThanTheSun]

Pointing out wealth inequality isn't classist and pointing out that top jobs are dominated by white men isn't racist or sexist, I'm seriously confused by that. I don't see why the idea that the people who rule a country should reflect the demographics of the people they rule, should be controversial. Just like I don't see why the people who do other top jobs in society shouldn't also be reflective of the class/gender/racial/sexual/whatever makeup of the wider population. For me it's much more to do with equal opportunity in society than it is with how well politicians from different backgrounds represent their constituents (though I think this is important to think about too).

Also, why should an interesting discussion die because it's slightly off topic? Since when have BEA threads ever stayed on topic?
_________________
Shut up mate you're boring!

[ptaylor1989]

in all fairness lethal, you are one of the last people on BEA that has any credibility when engaging anyone on the topic of how people should talk to each other. You know it and have admitted it each time you realize you've gone too far. Also, I can't believe you are trying to school me on the use or overuse of the word racist. But, I respect the fact that you are calling bullshit. Actually the facts stop there. We hardly ever use any actual data to support our claims so I'm sorry if I take peoples opinions out of context. Honestly, I entered the convo for the same reason you enter topics that frustrate you ("I saw a sentence I disagreed with, or at least took issue with, and responded to that. I agree this thread should be used for its intended purpose - a discussion about gender within politics - but if I see bullshit I'm going to call it."). I completely agree

I would never support the claim, "pointing out wealth inequality is wrong". It's shocking you think I'd ever say that. And of course I agree, "that the people who rule a country should reflect the demographics of the people they rule". That's a politicians job. Sounds like I'm at fault for incorrectly paraphrasing someone in this thread too. I'm man enough to say i'm sorry if that's the case.

Personally, I don't think a skin-color diversity necessarily equates to a diverse marketplace of ideas. This is for another thread but I believe specialized politicians only focused on their hotbutton issues just leads to greater political gridlock. Disagree with me if you want, but I don't see why we should go back and forth on topics in which we agree on most points: social inequality sucks, governmental utopia empirically doesn't exist but is ideal etc etc. Those aren't the points i took issue with.

I'm just saying for the 15,000th time: if you can't see how it's strange to say, "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", we will never agree. If it's not racist or classist, then it's a (enter a slew of adjectives here), generalization. That's not backtracking, that's the most simple way I can put it. PM me if you wanna strangle me but let's not strangle this thread
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/ptaylor1989

[HigherThanTheSun]

Nah I never thought that you'd find pointing out wealth inequality to be wrong and I didn't mean to give that impression.

Stand by the idea that voters are best represented by politicians who most closely match their demographics though. Originally only made the point re class and wealth but I think it applies to some extent to other groups in society too, like women/racial and sexual minorities/religious groups/young people/disabled people etcetc whatever groups in society which are under represented in politics.

Never said that these people couldn't be represented by people who don't fit the exact same characteristics as them, just that they're probably best represented by people who are similar. I actually think that there should be as much diversity in politics as possible (at least as much as there is diversity in wider society anyway). I don't see why the voices of more female politicians on the issue of abortion, to use your example, would be a bad thing, and I don't see why it's crazy to think that women might have a greater insight and more to offer the debate than most men, they certainly have more at stake.

As for politicians only focusing on their 'hotbutton' issues I'm with you completely, politicians need to remember that they're representing a diverse group of people with even more diverse political interests; to crusade only for one particular issue is to let down the people who voted for them.
_________________
Shut up mate you're boring!

[ptaylor1989]

[Jackwc]

BEA discussion point:

WHAT DEFINES GENDER?
_________________
A dick that's bigger than the sun.

Music sucks. Check out my favourite movies, fam:
http://letterboxd.com/jackiegigantic/

[SquishypuffDave]

I mentioned this in another thread a while back, and it was a point of contention among some users: I think that defining gender as anything other than one's sex just serves to reinforce gender stereotypes. I don't really buy into the idea that I'm multiple types of "male" at the same time. I'm just a person with a male body.

[Jackwc]

[drakonium]

[Guest]

I agree with what Squish and Jack said. I'm not sure if I can add much... well, I suppose gender stereotypes often come from things ingrained in culture as opposed to being biological.