UC Berkeley at it again
-
Your only point is no female US President. The rest of it is a bunch of crap.
You have no rebuttal to my points so you claim that I'm confused. Typical SJW bullshit.
You demand that we ignore the lunatic fringe, but fighting against gender equality is mainstream feminism.
-
If it's not patriarchy, then what? Give an alternative explanation at least.
Here are several points to consider:
-
I think we can all agree that women, in the past, were very much oppressed. Certainly at least up until the women's suffrage movement, at least.
-
Since that point, there have only been 16 presidents, not 45. If you want to say that 0 in 45 isn't just bad luck, nobody would disagree with that point, technically, because of point 1. However not having one female president in 16 clearly isn't as meaningful.
-
You seem genuinely interested in gaining the opposite perspective, but the alternative explanation is actually kind of obvious. Don't you think it's strange that you seemed as if you weren't able to even mentally consider it?
There are more men on both extremes, dumber and smarter, of the normal distribution. It directly follows that there are proportionately more highly qualified men than women in certain tasks and abilities.
Women and men have different pre-dispositions for different majors, and thus different careers and jobs.
**Unequal outcome does not logically follow from unequal opportunity, and NEVER has. **
-
-
Your only point is no female US President. The rest of it is a bunch of crap.
You have no rebuttal to my points so you claim that I'm confused. Typical SJW bullshit.
You demand that we ignore the lunatic fringe, but fighting against gender equality is mainstream feminism.
There are actually more points, but the President point alone invalidates your whole argument so you definitely need to defend that if nothing else. So far you have not, which means you've formed opinions based on a truth you clearly can't even justify. That betrays a lack of objectivity and a trend towards bias and emotional decision-making. AKA that's why I claimed you've been programmed by the right. You should have thought through all the arguments on all sides, and if you haven't, then at least admit when you haven't and be willing to admit when you're wrong/uninformed/etc. Instead you want to play games and try changing topics when you can't defend points. It's a credibility-destroying tactic and shows you're arguing out of ego or agenda instead of truth-seeking or higher values.
-
- Since that point, there have only been 16 presidents, not 45. If you want to say that 0 in 45 isn't just bad luck, nobody would disagree with that point, technically, because of point 1. However not having one female president in 16 clearly isn't as meaningful.
Even if somehow I think patriarchy would be erased simply because females got the legal right to vote (a claim that is so obviously flawed to me, because that's like arguing gays don't get discriminated against just because we can legally vote), 0/16 is still a ridiculous significant statistic. It's not as big as 45, but it's still a terribly meaningful stat when females aren't even minorities! If you look at it as a simple statistics problem (which is more objective than people voting since it's based on random chance), the chance of 0/16 "heads" or "tails" with a fair coin is:
0.0000152588
http://calculator.tutorvista.com/coin-toss-probability-calculator.html
In other words, the odds of having 0 female Presidents in a fair environment is close to 0% and at best rounded up big time is 1%. In other words, something is augmenting pure luck. One can argue females are innately biologically inferior when it comes to politics and/or patriarchy exists (an environment that gives males advantages in the political arena).
- You seem genuinely interested in gaining the opposite perspective, but the alternative explanation is actually kind of obvious. Don't you think it's strange that you seemed as if you weren't able to even mentally consider it?
There are more men on both extremes, dumber and smarter, of the normal distribution. It directly follows that there are proportionately more highly qualified men than women in certain tasks and abilities.
Women and men have different pre-dispositions for different majors, and thus different careers and jobs.
I did consider the point, and I follow your logic. However, the difference between us is this:
A possible explanation you have given for Presidential results is that the "best" males of our population (in terms of being able to win in politics) are more competitive than all the females in our population. That is possible. But then I must ask…why? What causes those pre-dispositions for both males and females? To me the answer is: biology and environment. For those who are religious, they may feel there's spiritual or God-given programming too. But pre-disposition comes from somewhere right?
And in the case of politics, which is a non-nature-based talent/skill and is completely social (people voting for people, people influencing people, etc.), that's why much of the "merit" or "qualification" involved in that must necessarily be environmental and not biological. That means the inequality is at least partly and largely coming from society itself. Which means patriarchy exists.
**Unequal outcome does not logically follow from unequal opportunity, and NEVER has. **
I agree with you on that. But at the same time, where there's smoke there's often fire.
Given both the historical context, the incredibly extreme nature of the statistically unequal and highly improbably outcomes, and obvious facts that all societies (even the more egalitarian ones) contain people with different statuses, powers, and privileges–it requires a ridiculous amount of naivety and benefit of the doubt to assume that we have somehow achieved complete equality among the 2 genders.
If indeed the unequal outcomes is the product of PURE LUCK, then one needs to come up with amazing explanations for all the clear indicators of inequality and have them make sense. When you can do that, then I could get more on board with the argument of ridiculously improbable luck.
-
Your only point is no female US President. The rest of it is a bunch of crap.
You have no rebuttal to my points so you claim that I'm confused. Typical SJW bullshit.
You demand that we ignore the lunatic fringe, but fighting against gender equality is mainstream feminism.
There are actually more points, but the President point alone invalidates your whole argument so you definitely need to defend that if nothing else. So far you have not, which means you've formed opinions based on a truth you clearly can't even justify. That betrays a lack of objectivity and a trend towards bias and emotional decision-making. AKA that's why I claimed you've been programmed by the right. You should have thought through all the arguments on all sides, and if you haven't, then at least admit when you haven't and be willing to admit when you're wrong/uninformed/etc. Instead you want to play games and try changing topics when you can't defend points. It's a credibility-destroying tactic and shows you're arguing out of ego or agenda instead of truth-seeking or higher values.
As Trudeau said, it's extremely difficult to get women to run for office.
If women wanted a woman President, it would happen. There would be nothing men could do to stop it.
This is where you blame "patriarchy".
Now refute my points.
-
Your only point is no female US President. The rest of it is a bunch of crap.
You have no rebuttal to my points so you claim that I'm confused. Typical SJW bullshit.
You demand that we ignore the lunatic fringe, but fighting against gender equality is mainstream feminism.
There are actually more points, but the President point alone invalidates your whole argument so you definitely need to defend that if nothing else. So far you have not, which means you've formed opinions based on a truth you clearly can't even justify. That betrays a lack of objectivity and a trend towards bias and emotional decision-making. AKA that's why I claimed you've been programmed by the right. You should have thought through all the arguments on all sides, and if you haven't, then at least admit when you haven't and be willing to admit when you're wrong/uninformed/etc. Instead you want to play games and try changing topics when you can't defend points. It's a credibility-destroying tactic and shows you're arguing out of ego or agenda instead of truth-seeking or higher values.
As Trudeau said, it's extremely difficult to get women to run for office.
If women wanted a woman President, it would happen. There would be nothing men could do to stop it.
This is where you blame "patriarchy".
Now refute my points.
There's nothing to refute. You still haven't given an alternate explanation to why enough women don't want women as President. I said the reason is patriarchy. You have offered absolutely no other explanation and want me to refute…what? We both agree that not enough women have wanted a woman as President (or want to run as President). I obviously don't have to refute the parts that we already agree on.
This is exactly why I don't believe you understand what patriarchy is or at least the definition I am using. You're not being active in THIS argument. You're arguing with demons from your past, instead of addressing the points that I specifically raised.
SUMMARY
Conclusion = This country hasn't achieved complete fairness or equality and isn't even close to it
Conclusion based on evidentiary support that this country has had no female Presidents (unequal outcome) which is a ridiculous statistic assuming this country was "fair" in gendered politics. Therefore, this country is not "fair" in terms of gendered Presidencies
WHY IS THAT?
Both of us agree = Less women run for politics and women don't automatically vote for women
I would add = Overt and subtle sexism plays a role as well, but let's just stick to the above explanation which we both agree on anyways*** You seem to stop here in this argument. I am already at the next step (which I already addressed and you ignored):
THE NEXT QUESTION: WHY IS THAT? Why don't women run for politics or why don't women vote for women?
My explanation = Agree with feminist argument that patriarchy exists = social structures/systems that give males more power in this area of life which include culture, traditional gender roles, social programming, the old boy clubs and other male dominated networks, lack of historical female role models in politics compared to males, outright sexism, etc.
- Thus, females are discouraged and/or not encouraged to WANT to try becoming President
- When the minority of females do want to become President, other females have been programmed to not want/trust/believe/etc. females should or can become President
Your explanation = So far nothing. I'm still waiting for your answer
-
Instead of blaming women for their failings, you blame some made up crap. You believe women have no agency.
You ignore female privilege.
You ignore feminists fighting against gender equality.
You are a sexist.
-
Instead of blaming women for their failings, you blame some made up crap. You believe women have no agency.
Because according to you, people raise themselves apparently. Everybody has individual accountability for themselves of course. That's a given. But society as a whole has accountability as well. We all affect one another. Not surprising though that you have no sense of social responsibility and don't understand the basics of how life works though.
-
More pathetic left bullshit because they can't have a debate on issues.
–-------------------------Those on the left can and often do have such discussions.
The problem with most of those on the far-right – such as you -- is that they are willfully-ignorant and -stupid, as well as too ethically immature, and thus cannot understand what those on the left are truly saying -- not what you foolish believe we are. Those are very, very far apart.
It is the plank in your eye that you do not see is there.
I always finding it amusing that you include in your posts that same photo about being who your dog thinks you are, because you most certainly are not. :cheesy2: You are just another hate-filled, right-wing whiner.
yawn
. . .
-
WOW, who would have thunk it. A liberal with no argument, just personal attacks.
You proved my point about liberals refusing to have any discussion. THANK!!!! :cheers:
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login