Politics & Gender - Politics & Religion - Forums : Best Ever Albums

ptaylor1989

Age: 34

HigherThanTheSun wrote:

@ptaylor, I think people are moaning at the system which causes politics to be dominated by rich white males rather than the rich white males themselves who take advantage of it, at least I was. As in, it's not ideal that only a narrow demographic of people in the US (and UK) have any real chance of reaching high office, and it's a problem that goes way beyond politics.

Apologies for linking a DM article but best I could find at short notice.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...shows.html
How the UK is STILL run by private school elite: Study shows 80 per cent of those who hold key positions in British society received privileged education

^The aforementioned rich white guys who run the UK.

Most rich families send their children (white, black, Indian, females, whoever) to top schools. It's only natural to want the best education for your children, right? Isn't it class discrimination to assume rich people can't represent those who don't have as much money as them. More diversity, only leads to political gridlock (which is actually the intent of most democratic systems). Slow change is always better than the ability to inflict quick, crippling change.

I think it's absolutely off base to say a certain group of people are incapable of representing the very people who vote for them. The lack of females is disturbing but bigotry isn't limited to rich white males. Every culture has it's bigoted vices.
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/ptaylor1989

Guest

ptaylor1989 wrote:

I think it's absolutely off base to say a certain group of people are incapable of representing the very people who vote for them.

I know you are interested in semantics and usually word things pretty carefully, as is the case here. Yes, you're right in saying that certain groups of people aren't incapable of representing the voters who put them in power, but that doesn't mean they aren't hesitant or quite often unwilling to help them. It's plainly obvious that a person who was sent to a private school and went onto a top university and spent their lives in large houses in wealthy suburbs will find it harder to relate to members of the working class than other members of the working class, and when your voting choice is between two or three people who are closer to the former than the latter then the chances of voters being represented by somebody who can relate to them is very slim indeed. There isn't a real option for upward social mobility within mainstream politics (in the UK at least), so time and time again the option is between one white upper-middle (or often just upper) class male and another. They may not be incapable of representing the working classes, but they're often hesitant or unwilling to help them.

HigherThanTheSun

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: UK

ptaylor1989 wrote:

I think it's absolutely off base to say a certain group of people are incapable of representing the very people who vote for them.

Haven't even touched on that so I'm confused, just been making a general point about equal opportunity in society so far. For the record I don't believe they're incapable, I just think they're mostly less capable and in a lot of cases less willing to do so.

The point about private schools wasn't about race or gender, more to do with social mobility and how the wealth of the family you're born into has such a big influence in how you're likely to get on in life. It would surprise me if there were many here who are comfortable with the fact that what a child may reasonably expect to achieve in life is dictated to them by who their parents happen to be (and how wealthy they are).

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

_________________
Shut up mate you're boring!

ptaylor1989

Age: 34

This is the most idealistic and unrealistic politics discussion I've had. I'll bow out after this: Maybe you didn't address that idea specifically HTTS but you just now admitted what was pretty obvious. You might think rich white people are less capable of representing the poor like you've admitted but let's be honest, poor people cant afford the costs of campaigning. You can't just assume that all problems with government stem from the fact that they are rich (like eyekanfly seems to think) and that money somehow prevents politicians from voting like their constituents want them to. One of a politician's main goals is to get re-elected. So echoing the voters is extremely important to many in power. The problem isn't just the leaders in power but those who vote. Whoever said low turnout isn't the problem is naive to politics. There seems to be a direct link to voter turnout and social inequality.

In other words the blame doesn't seem focused on the leaders. To prove that point, take a look at two of the best rated governments in your own picture. Germany, which spreads it's power through many political parties( i think it still has a three major-party system, might be wrong) and Japan, who's conservative ruling party has been in power since 1955. These two very different governments have one major thing in common: much higher voting rates than the US and consist of very wealthy representatives.

yes it sucks that wealth weighs so heavily on fate but the problem isn't rich white people.
How can you sit there and defend classist (prolly not a word), mildly racist statements like that?
Now if you want to blame the problem on poor education, i'm with you all the way
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/ptaylor1989

Kool Keith Sweat

So, uh, let's not forget this topic is primarily about gender and politics, not race and wealth and politics...

ptaylor1989

Age: 34

ppnw wrote:

So, uh, let's not forget this topic is primarily about gender and politics, not race and wealth and politics...

it's the only reason i made a stink. soo off topic and retarded
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/ptaylor1989

EyeKanFly
Head Bear Master/Galactic Emperor

Age: 33
Location: Gotham

HigherThanTheSun wrote:

Haven't even touched on that so I'm confused, just been making a general point about equal opportunity in society so far. For the record I don't believe they're incapable, I just think they're mostly less capable and in a lot of cases less willing to do so.

The point about private schools wasn't about race or gender, more to do with social mobility and how the wealth of the family you're born into has such a big influence in how you're likely to get on in life. It would surprise me if there were many here who are comfortable with the fact that what a child may reasonably expect to achieve in life is dictated to them by who their parents happen to be (and how wealthy they are).

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

This is interesting. And I agree with what you said.

ptaylor1989 wrote:

You can't just assume that all problems with government stem from the fact that they are rich (like eyekanfly seems to think) and that money somehow prevents politicians from voting like their constituents want them to.

Come on, I didn't say that, and I even clarified when you questioned that the first time. My response to this is basically the same points nezzle gave.

ptaylor1989 wrote:

One of a politician's main goals is to get re-elected. So echoing the voters is extremely important to many in power.

IMO politicians spend way too much of their time, and effort for re-election, when they should be focusing more on representing the people and addressing issues at hand.

ptaylor1989 wrote:

The problem isn't just the leaders in power but those who vote. Whoever said low turnout isn't the problem is naive to politics.

Well yes, the problems have to be faced by all the citizens in the country, including leaders and those who can vote (not to mention those who cannot vote). Naivety to politics has nothing to do with it. It's just a matter of opinion. And IMO it seems a bit naive to say that we can fix our problems with a higher voting turnout.

ptaylor1989 wrote:

There seems to be a direct link to voter turnout and social inequality.

That's just straight up not true. If by "direct link" you mean "slight correlation" then yes, I'd agree with you. Look at countries like Poland (low turnout, similar inequality to Germany), Switzerland (very low turnout, low inequality), and France (high turnout, high inequality relative to Germany/Japan). Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

[quote="ptaylor1989"]In other words the blame doesn't seem focused on the leaders. To prove that point, take a look at two of the best rated governments in your own picture. Germany, which spreads it's power through many political parties( i think it still has a three major-party system, might be wrong) and Japan, who's conservative ruling party has been in power since 1955. These two very different governments have one major thing in common: much higher voting rates than the US and consist of very wealthy representatives.[quote="ptaylor1989"]
In response to this and a continuation from my previous comment, Germany and Japan both have a high standard of living and quality of life (compared to the US and UK). Standard of living is determined by income, while quality of life is determined by many factors. Obviously countries with high SOL/QOL have low social inequality, but it can also be said that countries with high SOL/QOL generally have higher voter turnout. I think the "direct link" you mentioned isn't so direct. However there's definitely a link between inequality and SOL/QOL.

ptaylor1989 wrote:

yes it sucks that wealth weighs so heavily on fate but the problem isn't rich white people.
How can you sit there and defend classist (prolly not a word), mildly racist statements like that?
Now if you want to blame the problem on poor education, i'm with you all the way

I'm sorry if I come across as classist (it is a word Wink

), but the fact remains that there ARE classes, and a huge gap between the upper and lower. For me this is an enormous problem. Also, I apologize for any statement which may have been interpreted as racist. While I was mentioning the "rich white men", it's the "rich" and "men" that I'm trying to target. So yes, I apologize for the "mild racism".

And yes, I'll agree with you on the last statement. Education is easily one of the biggest factors to blame. Lower income Americans don't have access to the higher quality education that upper income Americans have access to. This is evident from elementary school all the way through graduate school. Anyway, in an effort to tie this back in to the whole gender thing, education is a big deal. While we should definitely emphasize "women in politics" (and women in science/engineering/medicine/etc), this isn't the only thing we should be doing. I think the biggest thing we can do as a society is lead by example. Basically what I'm saying is that the best way to get women into politics is by already having women in politics. Unfortunately, we still need a way to kick-start the process. We already have women in politics, and the amount of female politicians is increasing, but I suppose it's not enough.
_________________
51 Washington, D.C. albums!

ptaylor1989

Age: 34

i'm done buddy. I think we'll have to agree to disagree to keep it on topic. I do agree I misspoke on the direct link thing. Seems linked to me though. If not, then whatever but if every government consists of rich people in office, and certain governments are ideal while others aren't, I don't see the link between rich white people and bad government. sounds like something else more complicated is happening and i just don't think we'll solve it. Go equality though!
_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/ptaylor1989

EyeKanFly
Head Bear Master/Galactic Emperor

Age: 33
Location: Gotham

ptaylor1989 wrote:

i'm done buddy. I think we'll have to agree to disagree to keep it on topic. I do agree I misspoke on the direct link thing. Seems linked to me though. If not, then whatever but if every government consists of rich people in office, and certain governments are ideal while others aren't, I don't see the link between rich white people and bad government. sounds like something else more complicated is happening and i just don't think we'll solve it. Go equality though!

Agree to disagree Smile

And yes, I can agree with your last point. Anyway, I was kinda trying to bring it back to topic.

Now something new (and on topic):

I've always been intrigued by seeing "women" as a demographic of voters. Based on the 2012 presidential election turnout, "women" make up more than half of all of America's votes. More women vote than men (and it has been that way since the early 80s), so why do news sources (everyone from Fox and CNN to the Huffington Post and New York Times) feel the need to classify "women" as a singular group of voters? I mean, "women" are the largest single demographic in America (aside from maybe "people"). I've seen from various places things like "Obama won because of the female vote" and "women lean towards the left", but never "Romney won the male vote". It's particularly interesting for me since more women vote than men. I suppose classifying women as a singular group of voters may be slightly more justifyable if "women" were a minority, but women aren't a minority. I think we need to treat women as a majority group rather than a "hive mind" (like how geographic regions and ethnicities are often represented).
_________________
51 Washington, D.C. albums!

Kool Keith Sweat

EyeKanFly wrote:

I've always been intrigued by seeing "women" as a demographic of voters.

Voting demographics are divided up the same way humans tend to divide themselves up, by race, gender, religion, etc. The 'woman voting demographic' is as diverse as any of those other divisions, and I'd prefer if this discussion actually applied to gender issues than issues applying to everything across the board.