Trump v Clinton: who do you support?

How would you vote if you could vote?

Vote enthusiastically for Trump
12
14%
Vote enthusiastically for Clinton
8
9%
Vote for Trump because you despise Clinton
12
14%
Vote for Clinton because you despise Trump
19
22%
Refuse to vote because you despise them both
30
35%
Undecided
5
6%
 
Total votes: 86

User avatar
kbdfr
The Tiproman

11 May 2016, 18:10

Of course people have issues, including women.
However, just being a woman is not an issue - as long as you are not confronted with misogyny.
So the problem is not being a woman, the problem is misogyny.

andrewjoy

11 May 2016, 18:30

kbdfr wrote: Of course people have issues, including women.
However, just being a woman is not an issue - as long as you are not confronted with misogyny.
So the problem is not being a woman, the problem is misogyny.
Oh don't start with the big M you will have the "we live in a patriarchy crowd" started :P.

Sure there will be cases of it i am sure more than a few, just as there is cases of any type of discrimination, like for example the mayor of London http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/03/ ... rt-for-lon who wants to "reshape" the board of transport for London because it has too many white men, who gives a shit if they are good at there jobs or not, they are white men get rid!

Any type of discrimination is wrong , from discriminating against someone because they are a woman , or because they have one leg or because they are white or black or whatever.

In an ideal world everyone would base there opinions of someone on there actions not on where they keep there genitals or how much melanin they have in there skin, but alas we don't live in a perfect world and we never will.

Thats why i am not a fan of quotas for this and quotas for that and all that lets get 50% of everything on the board of a company or whatever, its never going to be perfect , so just chose people on skill not on anything else.

User avatar
chuckdee

11 May 2016, 18:40

chuckdee wrote:
andrewjoy wrote: I also don't know how any none white person can bring themselves to vote for her , what with her being a racist and all.
Reference?
Was this being sarcastic? Or is there a reference?

User avatar
OleVoip

11 May 2016, 18:55

Statistics say the opposite: The Bern has won where nonwhite minorities are smallest, Hillary where large fractions of the population are Blacks or Hispanics.

User avatar
kbdfr
The Tiproman

11 May 2016, 19:22

andrewjoy wrote: […] there is cases of any type of discrimination, like for example the mayor of London […] who wants to "reshape" the board of transport for London because it has too many white men, who gives a shit if they are good at there jobs or not, they are white men get rid! […]

[…] so just chose people on skill not on anything else.
I strongly doubt the mayor of London intends to fire present employees and give their jobs to "not-white" and/or "not-men",
but rather to "reshape" the future hiring practice in order to, as you put it, "chose people on skill not on anything else".
Or do you really think the (if so) white men majority is due only to them having better skills?

It’s always funny to see people denying discrimination when it hits other groups than their own.
Funny? Did I say funny? :cry:

User avatar
fohat
Elder Messenger

11 May 2016, 19:30


User avatar
Muirium
µ

11 May 2016, 20:54

You know what I mean, Kbdfr. Hillary's problem isn't that she's a woman. It's that other people* have a problem with her being a woman**. Specifically electing one as commander in chief. She's compensating for other people's misogyny.

Same applies for many perceived flaws in people. The flaw is may well be in the eye of the beholder, but it still affects the person in question, like Donald's lice …

*Some. But including that in the sentence ruins the prosody, so bollocks to it!
**Plenty of Bernie Sanders supporters, for instance, and some network admins in Liverpool so I gather.

User avatar
Halvar

11 May 2016, 21:12

kbdfr wrote: Or do you really think the (if so) white men majority is due only to them having better skills?
Before I blame the people who decide on hirings of discrimination, my first guess would be that it might be mostly due to the demographic that trains and applies for these jobs. If the composition of employees is vastly different fron the one of applicants (which is relatively easy to find out for them), then there might be a problem. But to assume that there is a problem from the start because of our "patriarchal society" is pure ideology.

User avatar
chuckdee

11 May 2016, 21:14

Muirium wrote: You know what I mean, Kbdfr. Hillary's problem isn't that she's a woman. It's that other people* have a problem with her being a woman**. Specifically electing one as commander in chief. She's compensating for other people's misogyny.

Same applies for many perceived flaws in people. The flaw is may well be in the eye of the beholder, but it still affects the person in question, like Donald's lice …

*Some. But including that in the sentence ruins the prosody, so bollocks to it!
**Plenty of Bernie Sanders supporters, for instance, and some network admins in Liverpool so I gather.
I wouldn't go so far as to label the problem being a rampant case of misogyny. It's becoming akin to racism and the race card.

Misogyny means, "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women." Racism means "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Misogyny leaves a bit more to chance and interpretation, admittedly. But racism really doesn't. If someone doesn't have that belief of superiority, then it's not that. But we have arrived at the point where everything is being lumped together in those statements. And it's really harming the conversation around the topics, and the ability to have open and honest conversations, IMO.

I don't think that most people have a problem with her gender, any more than most people had a problem with Obama's race. If that were the case, then she would be unelectable, no matter her compensations, and he would not be president. It's just that a disproportionate amount of attention is put on those that have those views, and that attention is then cast to include all of those that don't give them support- no matter their reasoning.
Halvar wrote:
kbdfr wrote: Or do you really think the (if so) white men majority is due only to them having better skills?
Before I blame the people who decide on hirings of discrimination, my first guess would be that it might be mostly due to the demographic that trains and applies for these jobs. If the composition of employees is vastly different fron the one of applicants (which is relatively easy to find out for them), then there might be a problem. But to assume that there is a problem from the start because of our "patriarchal society" is pure ideology.
Tribalism is general human nature. That's just a fact. You have those that fight it, and those rare people where it's not. But that's outside of the norm. What we should be concentration on is awareness, and removing impediments, rather than some misguided sense of inclusion.

There is an image that many use... of a minority woman at the beginning of the race against a white man, and the way for the man being clear, and for the woman being strewn with obstacles, even though the distance to the finish line is the same. You can imagine the caption.

But inclusiveness is putting the woman at the finish line. I believe a better way of handling it is to remove those obstacles, and then let the race be run fairly. Unfortunately, general society doesn't agree with that perspective.

User avatar
Muirium
µ

11 May 2016, 21:37

Yeah, we're on the same wavelength. It's sad that female politicians so very frequently adopt masculine tropes, but that's branding for you. Got to pander to the dummies.

Margaret Thatcher is likely what Hillary has in mind. That's surely the case for Scotland's own tank commander Tory chief.

Image

A masterpiece of subtle messaging! She's lesbian, anti independence, and just won quite a lot of votes. This bullshit works.

User avatar
webwit
Wild Duck

11 May 2016, 21:59

Lesbians on Tanks might be the winning tactic against ISIS. Not that cowardly drone bombing anymore.

User avatar
Halvar

11 May 2016, 22:05

chuckdee wrote: Tribalism is general human nature. That's just a fact. You have those that fight it, and those rare people where it's not. But that's outside of the norm. What we should be concentration on is awareness, and removing impediments, rather than some misguided sense of inclusion.
That's very true, but what do you do when everyone worked on removing impediments for no less than 40 years, and in some professions, things change, e.g. you have a majority of female medical doctors, and a majority of female teachers, but in other professions, nothing changes much?

Carefully analyze, raise awareness and remove impediments that still exist: yes.

Presume that there must be impediments just because there isn't a 51:49 ratio in all professions: no.

Women's quota: definitely no.

Vote for a presidential candidate for his or her gender: hell no. (Voting for Angela Merkel hoping for her to promote women's issues would be ridiculous, btw.)

Clinton has other problems than her gender, namely her track record as secretary of state and her opportunistic personality. Nobody in his right mind would say she isn't tough though.

User avatar
seebart
Offtopicthority Instigator

11 May 2016, 22:05

Muirium wrote: Yeah, we're on the same wavelength. It's sad that female politicians so very frequently adopt masculine tropes, but that's branding for you. Got to pander to the dummies.

Margaret Thatcher is likely what Hillary has in mind. That's surely the case for Scotland's own tank commander Tory chief.

A masterpiece of subtle messaging! She's lesbian, anti independence, and just won quite a lot of votes. This bullshit works.
Not this one, she's just whimpy on the outside and mediocre the rest of the way...
000dba_merkel-igitt.jpg
000dba_merkel-igitt.jpg (36.8 KiB) Viewed 578 times

andrewjoy

11 May 2016, 22:14

kbdfr wrote:
andrewjoy wrote: […] there is cases of any type of discrimination, like for example the mayor of London […] who wants to "reshape" the board of transport for London because it has too many white men, who gives a shit if they are good at there jobs or not, they are white men get rid! […]

[…] so just chose people on skill not on anything else.
I strongly doubt the mayor of London intends to fire present employees and give their jobs to "not-white" and/or "not-men",
but rather to "reshape" the future hiring practice in order to, as you put it, "chose people on skill not on anything else".
Or do you really think the (if so) white men majority is due only to them having better skills?

It’s always funny to see people denying discrimination when it hits other groups than their own.
Funny? Did I say funny? :cry:

"I will reshape TfL's board,"

Direct quote

And i did not say they are better because they are white , i said that he wants to "transform the board" to do that he has to get rid of people who may very well be good at there jobs , not saying the replacement is worse but thats what you have to do if you want to make space to make it "more diverse"

jacobolus

11 May 2016, 22:28

Halvar wrote: That's very true, but what do you do when everyone worked on removing impediments for no less than 40 years, and in some professions, things change, e.g. you have a majority of female medical doctors, and a majority of female teachers, but in other professions, nothing changes much?
In education, teaching has been majority female for generations, at least in the US (dunno about other places). It used to be one of the only careers accessible to educated ambitious women. After being defined in American society as a “women’s job”, the pay and social status of teachers has been deteriorating for the past 40 years, and both men and many of the best women (who had better prospects in other careers) started to flee, to the point that there are few men left, and among highly educated women, it is only the most philosophically dedicated to the job who remain. The profession is also skewing older as younger teachers are scared away, and will soon face an acute crisis when the older generation of teachers retire without enough replacements.

If you look at school administrators (principals, school district superintendents, etc.) they tend to skew more male, and have higher salaries and better career prospects.

In medicine, there are many young female doctors, but a big pay gap remains, and many of the more lucrative specialties skew very heavily male. Nurses are almost all female, and have worse pay and less respect than doctors, despite requiring significant professional training.

User avatar
webwit
Wild Duck

11 May 2016, 23:15

It would be hypocritical not to take the argument the whole way.

There aren't many women on deskthority, this must be because of sexist discrimination by the male majority.

User avatar
fohat
Elder Messenger

11 May 2016, 23:35

webwit wrote:
There aren't many women on deskthority,
At least tp4tissue isn't here scaring them off.

User avatar
seebart
Offtopicthority Instigator

11 May 2016, 23:37

webwit wrote: There aren't many women on deskthority, this must be because of sexist discrimination by the male majority.
Honestly I don't think so, let's ask Cindy sometime.

User avatar
Muirium
µ

11 May 2016, 23:39

Childhood beats the nerd right out of all but the most dedicated nerds of girls.

Or rather it shuns.

andrewjoy

11 May 2016, 23:49

jacobolus wrote:
Halvar wrote: That's very true, but what do you do when everyone worked on removing impediments for no less than 40 years, and in some professions, things change, e.g. you have a majority of female medical doctors, and a majority of female teachers, but in other professions, nothing changes much?
In education, teaching has been majority female for generations, at least in the US (dunno about other places). It used to be one of the only careers accessible to educated ambitious women. After being defined in American society as a “women’s job”, the pay and social status of teachers has been deteriorating for the past 40 years, and both men and many of the best women (who had better prospects in other careers) started to flee, to the point that there are few men left, and among highly educated women, it is only the most philosophically dedicated to the job who remain. The profession is also skewing older as younger teachers are scared away, and will soon face an acute crisis when the older generation of teachers retire without enough replacements.

If you look at school administrators (principals, school district superintendents, etc.) they tend to skew more male, and have higher salaries and better career prospects.

In medicine, there are many young female doctors, but a big pay gap remains, and many of the more lucrative specialties skew very heavily male. Nurses are almost all female, and have worse pay and less respect than doctors, despite requiring significant professional training.
That video is terrible, no sample size in the study, and it does not tell you what they do to adjust the figures to account for well whatever it is , i am not saying the numbers are wrong just the way they are presented you cannot trust them. The presenter is also clearly trying to re-enforce an assumption he already has not look at the data for what it is. Is there anyway we can see the full details of the study along with the testing methodology they used and this mystical adjustment they do to the figures ?

You say that may nurses are women and that it takes significant training for the role, and yes it does , but are you seriously telling me that a nurse who has done less training and has less responsibility than a doctor should earn the same ? If you are then that is just stupid, there has to be a reward for the added responsibility and that reward is pay.

You also say that the more "lucrative" specialities skew towards men, they very well may do , but what is the reason for this ? Is it because of the "system" ? Or is it because people are in fact not all identical and make different choices in there life than others.

Your points about problems with teaching are correct , there is a big problem with the teaching profession, its not well funded enough so why would you go into it when you could get better pay with your skills elsewhere , this has nothing to do with it being considered a "woman's job" its simply a financial reality. Teaching ( at least at the younger ages ) is much more dominated by women, this could be many reasons , chances are that due to women having a naturally stronger urge towards caring for children than men do , this is not sexism or discrimination anything like that but a simple biological reality. Its the same reason more men are builders and labourers, men have a higher muscle mass than women do so they are more suited to this role, again not sexism or discrimination a simple biological fact. Nobody is stooping ether of the jobs being done by anyone but there are explanations other than ooo discrimination to account for any differences , not saying 100% there is no discrimination anywhere but there is no systematic issue no.

I also notice that its always the well paid safe positions people cry about gender disparity, you don't see people crying that not enough women are coal miners deep sea fisherman or lumberjacks do you? More men do the dangerous jobs again because men and women are different , men are more likely to take risks than women.

Let me just end by saying , nothing is as simple as its made out to be , there are many factors that influence things , you cannot simply say that one person has an advantage over another without looking at all the factors. This is why the whole "on average x earn more than y " argument is so silly, you can never have it exactly average unless you force it , this is not good for anyone.

jacobolus

12 May 2016, 00:00

No, I wrote only 3 sentences + a youtube link because I don’t have the time and space to write a 20-page research review for your edification.

If you do a google scholar search for "medicine gender pay gap" or similar you can find a host of resources answering all of your questions. The questions are fine in a vacuum, but the aggressive spin you’re attaching is unnecessary, and your questions can mostly be easily answered with just a tiny bit of effort. As such, they come across as lazy excuses for the obnoxious casual sexism expressed in the rest of your post. Clearly the UK also has a long way to go on gender issues.

User avatar
fohat
Elder Messenger

12 May 2016, 00:09

Since I have and continue to become ever more "compassionate/bleeding-heart/dove" as I grow older, the thought of women as political leaders is encouraging, but the hard-ass Thatcher/Merkel/Clinton stereotype is precisely the type of woman that I * DO NOT * want to see in leadership roles.
Last edited by fohat on 12 May 2016, 00:10, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
chuckdee

12 May 2016, 00:09

jacobolus wrote: As such, they come across as lazy excuses for the obnoxious casual sexism expressed in the rest of your post.
This is the usual approach when you try to have conversation on such issues. His response seemed to be well formulated, and this one seems to address none of the issues he brought up, when they are real questions. Instead it is dismissed as casual sexism when that term is defined as "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex", and I don't see any of that in his response.

Kurplop

12 May 2016, 01:45

I love women and typically enjoy their company more than men. I have a wife and 3 daughters and want the best for them. I'm nearing the end of my career and don't have a competitive bias. I say that to establish my credentials to support my claims that my observations have little reason to be unfair.

While the income inequality shown in most studies seem to still favor men over women, the trends are greatly favoring women. A Pew study from 2013 shows that in 1980 the income disparity of women to men in the US was 62%. In 2012 the percent jumped up to 93%. If I were a guy entering the workplace today I think I'd have reason to worry. The natural attributes that favored men in the past are much less valuable today than even 30 years ago. Women today are graduating from college in much larger numbers than men and there is still an outcry about the unfairness in the system. I don't get it.

Sure, the 'old boy network' is still out there, but it no longer has a stranglehold over the workforce like it did in earlier times. Today with the educational opportunities and coaching targeting women, the time is ripe for female dominance in the near future. Meanwhile, the modern male is staying at home with his parents into his late 20's, mooching of of them while perfecting his video gaming skills, sleeping with his eyes open before an LED screen.
Last edited by Kurplop on 12 May 2016, 19:01, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
vivalarevolución
formerly prdlm2009

12 May 2016, 01:50

fohat wrote: Since I have and continue to become ever more "compassionate/bleeding-heart/dove" as I grow older, the thought of women as political leaders is encouraging, but the hard-ass Thatcher/Merkel/Clinton stereotype is precisely the type of woman that I * DO NOT * want to see in leadership roles.
That's the type of person I don't want to see in a leadership role, period, regardless of gender.

My workplace, and past workplaces, has both men and women in important leadership and supervisory roles. Some workplaces have been male dominated, other have been female dominated. The main thing that I have learned is that incompetence has no bounds, regardless of gender, race, age, or any other category we use to classify and discriminate against individuals.

And I'm with kurplop, I like women and enjoy their company. It's good to value half of the human race for more than physical attributes. You might learn something by doing so.
Last edited by vivalarevolución on 12 May 2016, 02:03, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
vivalarevolución
formerly prdlm2009

12 May 2016, 01:59

Oh and some fun news about Trump: he has put my state's governor, Mike Pence, on the short list for vice president. Pence is in danger of not being re-elected in one of the most reliably Republican states in the land. And I hope he does select Pence, simply to tap that nail a bit further into the coffin.

User avatar
fohat
Elder Messenger

12 May 2016, 03:35

vivalarevolución wrote:
the short list for vice president
Trump has nothing to lose.

But if he goes down in flames, I can't see any actual politician allied with him, who wanted a future career, rising from the ashes.

User avatar
kbdfr
The Tiproman

12 May 2016, 08:36

Nice to see a discussion about gender issues here on DT, and a serious one at that.

andrewjoy

12 May 2016, 10:27

jacobolus wrote: No, I wrote only 3 sentences + a youtube link because I don’t have the time and space to write a 20-page research review for your edification.

If you do a google scholar search for "medicine gender pay gap" or similar you can find a host of resources answering all of your questions. The questions are fine in a vacuum, but the aggressive spin you’re attaching is unnecessary, and your questions can mostly be easily answered with just a tiny bit of effort. As such, they come across as lazy excuses for the obnoxious casual sexism expressed in the rest of your post. Clearly the UK also has a long way to go on gender issues.

So because you cannot come up with numbers or facts to support your hypothesis you result to name calling , that is not very constructive. Show me some real unmolested data.

There is zero sexism in my post, that fact that any criticism of your viewpoint is labeled as sexism does more harm to women than good, you should read the aesops fable the boy who cried wolf.

Now can we please get rid of the name calling and focus on having a real discussion please.

User avatar
kbdfr
The Tiproman

12 May 2016, 11:30

Some long-standing prejudices seem never to disappear:
andrewjoy wrote: more men are builders and labourers, men have a higher muscle mass than women do so they are more suited to this role, again not sexism or discrimination a simple biological fact.
I'm not talking about the "biological facts", but about the alleged causality, i.e. implying that physical work is mostly done by men because it is physical work, and thus implying absence of gender discrimination.

Actually a lot of physical work is done by women. Nurses typically have to lift patients. Industrial cleaning is not just using a feather duster.
A long-running debate about female physical ability is about firefighters, here an example:
https://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wm ... ates1.html

And what about farmers?
In the world most small farmers (i.e. those most likely to not have farming machinery) are women (see also link to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization FAO there):
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/conten ... emale-far/
and women doing hard agricultural work is neither new nor uncommon:

Image
Image
Image

If you want to talk about discrimination, don't negate it outright,
but try to (honestly!) imagine you belong to the group in question.

Post Reply

Return to “Off-topic”