Comments on: A Step Back For Feminism

National Review: Supporting Hillary Clinton Because Of Her Gender Does Women No Good

[jimmyc1955]

Sam - I really advise you to actually read the article. If you do you will notice the author is a women - not a man. This tendency to link what you perceive as a bias against women to men is almost like a pavlovian response and I think indicates a strong bias on your part to side with women without considering the case.

It is the author who points out - as I have said before - that the Democratic campaign is pushing the "Vote for a women because she is a women" program. Note the 3rd paragraph under the "I got a C" sentence.

[bluestardad]

Women must be required to Register for the draft! Equal Rights means Equal Responsibilities! After you Register then we talk!

[samthetvcat]

PS Oh and I think the german shepard in my scenario is a girl named maybe something like Mindy and her favorite color is pink! lol!

[samthetvcat]

shanartisan - first off, that guy's got more of those e-diatribes? yikes - lol. Anyway, I think if you accept that the goal of doing a post-game analysis of a failure is so that damages can be repaired and future failures can be prevented, then the success of that analysis would be contingent upon the analyzer having the objectivity to accurately scrutinize those who had the power to alter the outcome of that event. I don't think objectivity requires a person to lack biases because we all have them - I think it requires a person to be aware of them so that they can override them.

Now it might sound completely reasonable and unbiased to you and the author at ejectejecteject to argue that while Gov. Blanco is "incompetent, weak, indecisive" and Mayor Nagin is an "incompetent, race-baiting black man" while simultaneously trying to argue that the Katrina problem wasn't FEMA and Dumbya's job to look after... But to use the ejectejecteject.com scenario of the wolf/sheep/sheepdog, I think making excuses leaves one vulnerable to becoming irrelevant to a german shepard type of dog who would sense a need and an opportunity and offer up a plan of action and win hearts at the same time. Why would anybody aspire to be a sheepdog rather than a german shepard?

[shanartisan]

Sam - Well said except I can't agree that all the people he thinks are incompetent are women and black. He has a real problem with Ted Kennedy, and his other pieces make it clear that more white males are involved than just ol' Teddy. His point is that incompetence knows no racial bounds, and neither does competence.

I think the imbalance between the races in that list of incompetents is a result not of Bill's picks, but of their party's power structure. For some reason the Democratic party seems to encourage (pink) idiots to take office. Note that his criticism is for each person's actions while in office. The problem with the mayor/police chief/governor in relation to Katrina is not that they are any color in particular, but that they decided to adopt a victim stance rather than take the action they (and only they) were empowered to take - pink vs grey in the essay. They didn't do their jobs in any of those cases and Bill Whittle doesn't hold back his criticism of that, whatever color they are.

[nativewoman]

Posted by jimmyc1955 at 02:44 PM : Feb 08, 2007

Hi Jummyc1955. I was referring to this article about supporting Hillary, or anyone, based on gender.

I haven't read all the posts here but I haven't seen anyone saying they were voting for Hillary because she is a woman. I was questioning where the author of the article got that idea because I've not seen it bandied about very much anywhere.

To me, the election is too far away to decide on any candidate yet.

I think there should be some time of reasonable "campaign season" along with responsible campaign finance.

If so many of the present Congressional members are focused on a presidential election over a year away, how can they be sufficiently focused on the urgent issues of the here and now?

[samthetvcat]

PS I wasn't talking about you shanartisan when I was talking about bias just in case that wasn't clear.

[samthetvcat]

(part1)
I skimmed through that article at ejectejecteject - holy ***, how long do you think it took that guy to write that piece? lol. I basically agree with his overriding vision that the ideal leader is one with good EI - strong at times you need to be strong to combat evil, but compassionate at the time you need to be compassionate for the greater good . . . with the ability to discern which is which and what action is most effective and be able to implement it according to plan or even not act as need be. Like he doesn't actually say this but I guess in his terms the ideal leader would be one who is both 'pink' AND 'grey', one of those 'complicated' leaders like a Reagan or a Kennedy who unfortunately only seem to emerge once every 20 or so years.

[samthetvcat]

(part 2)
The red flag for me with this piece though is that all the people believes are incompetent are women and black - just a gut feeling but I sense that this author is one of those people who might be a little more quick to dismiss somebody as outside his 'tribe' if that person is already different from him to begin with - not saying he's sexist or racist, I just think it's human nature somewhat mistrustful of 'outsiders' and he seems to exhibit this tendency to a degree that skews his objectivity imo. That's not to say though that if he has some bias there that it's to a degree that would cause him to alter his choice of candidate, but he does seem like the type that might keep repeating that he doesn't think so-and-so the female candidate is qualified despite being confronted with objective evidence that demonstrates that she's even more qualified than the competing male.

That's not to say that opposing parties or prospective voters ought not to ever question a candidate's qualifications - my point in taking issue with comments from people like jimmyc1955 is that if he doesn't like Hillary it can't possibly be because of her lack of qualifications if all he's bringing out is the old personal attacks instead of addressing Hillary on the merits (which people have repeatedly posted to which he keeps complaining - I still haven't seen nothin' - ugh!)

[jimmyc1955]

Frankly - the next election will be decided in the Democratic primaries, being a Democrate I will help choose. What I am trying to do is not fall for the almost slavish devotion to Hillary you read in all the papers, magazines and on TV. Look at the articles right here - you will not find one that actually questions anything she says or does.

That alarms me. We have a duty as citizens to question the candidates. What I am sensing here is that to question Hillary's qualifications or positions immediately disqualifies you from asking as you are lumped into the ENEMY bucket.