I just saw..................

[Canadiens1131]

I hope to see a female or minority be president.

And we may very well see this - but I'd be in favour of any good president at this point.

INANIMATE CARBON ROD!

 

[BonosSaint]

Well, don't ever mistake the ideals we evangelize with the behavior we exhibit. When there is discrepancy between words and behavior, always trust in the behavior as being the true indicator.

And truly, we wouldn't be in this state if so many women here in the US didn't buy into it. They want personal freedom and opportunity for themselves and their daughters, but have bought into this male deference thing. And are hugely rewarded by the men in power -- in work, etc.--for their willingness to climb the corporate ladder by deifying the boss while treating the women under them with no humanity or respect whatsoever. What a wonderful way to get around a sexual discrimination suit--have a woman do the discriminating. Beware the boss who has a harem of adoring women around him basking in his light, unwilling to create their own light and more than willing to douse the lights of the other women.

As long as we take it, we'll get it. As long as women think men are superior to women (at least to other women) we will be defacto second class citizens. (I think there are plenty of women who are supportive of women. I just don't think there are enough. And I don't think that being supportive of women is to be an enemy to men. There are a lot of really good women and really good men. Some of the biggest believers in me have been men as well as women. I've returned the favor to both, but yeah, I have a self-interest in supporting good women--good and bad being relative terms).

My guess here, is once you get beyond the old boy network, you will find plenty of men willing to vote for a qualified woman. I'm curious how many women you will find. We are often our own worst enemy.

End of rant and derailment. And yeah, it's nice to see a woman speaker. (Don't blow it. She's going to be watched carefully.)

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

True-some of Hillary's biggest critics are female. And they're not critics because of her stances on ______ issues. I would never say that women shouldn't criticize Hillary for x or y or whatever-but like I said there is fair and unfair criticism. And men still get more leeway and are criticized less for the same or comparable traits, etc. In politics and in other arenas.


Oh Nancy Pelosi will be crucified too, for the same traits and behaviors that men are applauded for. That's what is so unfair and makes me so angry-and it's certainly true for Hillary too. The fact remains though that many men are still threatened by women like them-but you're correct, some women are too.

 

[Sherry Darling]

Muslim congressman seeks out critic on House floor



Asked if he was felt singled out as the first Muslim member, Ellison said no and added, "By reaching out to Congressman Goode I'm not trying to be accepted, I'm trying to build bridges. In this world there are too many misunderstandings. I want to put a human face on things."

Those damn jihadists are so unreasonable.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Yeah, he definitely has some sort of hidden agenda there. I think that needs to be investigated by Homeland Security or something

 

[verte76]

I think it's great that Ellison is reaching out to Goode. According to the article (I read the whole thing) they are going to meet for coffee sometime soon. And Ellison's attitude is perfect. He just thinks it's all part of the development and isn't letting it get to him.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I guess they'd just better go to a white Christian American owned coffee shop

 

[redhotswami]

I guess they'd just better go to a white Christian American owned coffee shop

but they might have trouble finding one in DC

 

[verte76]

I guess they'd just better go to a white Christian American owned coffee shop

How about a Starbuck's? Seriously, when I was in D.C. in November of 2004 we were a block away from a Starbucks, and I had lunch there one day.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

But there might be Muslim owners of Starbucks, or Muslims working there, or Muslim customers Virgil Goode's head might explode. Or maybe he'd think they were conducting acts of terrorism via latte foam...

 

[Sherry Darling]

I know a couple of great hookah bars I can recommend in DC

 

[martha]

we were a block away from a Starbucks

Isn't everyplace in DC a block away from a Starbuck's?

 

[verte76]

Isn't everyplace in DC a block away from a Starbuck's?

Maybe. I can't remember.

 

[yolland]

Beware the boss who has a harem of adoring women around him basking in his light, unwilling to create their own light and more than willing to douse the lights of the other women.
.....................................
My guess here, is once you get beyond the old boy network, you will find plenty of men willing to vote for a qualified woman. I'm curious how many women you will find. We are often our own worst enemy.

For all I know this is what made you think of it, but I wonder how much this kind of thing ties in with this thread over in LS.

 

[BonosSaint]

No, I didn't see the thread in LS. Thanks, though. On the whole, I don't like the which sex makes a better of anything debate because I think it misses the core issues, but I've certainly observed things that bewilder me.

 

[redhotswami]

For all I know this is what made you think of it, but I wonder how much this kind of thing ties in with this thread over in LS.

will people every stop confining themselves/others in gender roles?

 

[yolland]

On the whole, I don't like the which sex makes a better of anything debate because I think it misses the core issues, but I've certainly observed things that bewilder me.

I'd agree with that. But could you maybe expand a bit on what you think the psychological process behind this "dousing the lights" looks like and how it might tie in to voting behavior? I could offer some speculations based on my own workplace, but academia is a pretty atypical work environment in many ways and it sounds like you've got firsthand acquaintance with what you're talking about.

I doubt there's any one reason why the US is so far behind when it comes to women's representation in politics, but most of my own theories so far have had to do with notions concerning peculiarly American attitudes towards politicians, as in this brief exchange I had with Irvine several months back. Perhaps this is in some sense really just a variant on what you're saying (or vice versa), but I'd be interested in getting a clearer fix on how you see what you described tying in to politics specifically.

 

[BonosSaint]

I think that many American women (and men) are not comfortable with women in the top authority position, with the chief decision-making responsibilities. I do not know what the reasons are behind that--whether there is a belief that women are intellectually inferior (although intellectual brilliance isn't something we seem to prize in our leaders), or (too often cited) women are emotionally incondusive to a position where clarity of thought and cold decision might be necessary, or (and I suspect this might be closest to the truth) Men present an aura (even if illusory) of authority much easier than women do--or are perceived to present that aura.

I read the exchange between you and Irvine and found it interesting and relatively accurate. I think many Americans are comfortable putting women in lesser degrees of authorities (ie, carrying out the policies of the men above them) and can pride themselves by pointing out those numbers.

I've said before I've listened to a lot of talk radio in the past due to curiosity and I'm always amazed by the women who call in, castigating other women for the exact same qualities they orgasm over in men (not that I think a lot of those qualities are exemplary in either sex)

I suppose if you want to take "douse the lights" to a political spectrum (although it is harder to pinpoint in such a broad and therefore hard to watch arena than it is to watch the dynamics in the workplace where you can observe it closely), I would think that you will find it is difficult for women running for higher office to get funding for a campaign without the approval of the male politicians above them. In a recent local election, I listened to the radio campaign a woman running for a state position andinvariably the testimonials from other power figures in the ad came from men--as if she's OK, men approve of her. (The lesser the position, the less the need for male approval).

Interestingly enough, look at two of the women who are in influential positions (one high profile, the other only high profile for a short time), one inadvertently refers to the President as her "husband" and the other practically wrote effusive, almost mash notes to him. I'd be a little hard pressed to find men doing that. My guess is that with politics as in life as I've observed, women rarely get much support or notice unless they are willing to absolutely toe the mark to further the agenda of the male power broker above them and unfortunately adoring deference is part of that recipe. And somehow that is acceptable.

 

[AchtungBono]

It's obvious that a muslim wouldn't take any oath based on the Christian bible so it's obvious that he would use the Koran, so why the big surprise?

I'm sure that Jewish congressmen/women aren't sworn in using the new testament, why should Muslims be any different?

 

[AussieU2fanman]

What if you're an athiest, what do you swear on in this case?

 

[yolland]

You don't have to swear on anything. In the case of senators and representatives, the formal swearing-in is a mass ceremony where no one puts their hand on anything, however, most of them also choose to have a subsequent individual swearing-in where a text of their choice may be used, more as a photo-op than anything else. Presidents aren't required to swear on anything either: Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Pierce didn't swear on Bibles; Pierce used a law book, I'm not sure if Roosevelt used anything. Both the act of swearing on a Bible and the common inclusion of the phrase "so help me God" are products of tradition, not Constitutional requirements.

Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article II, Section 1:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[A_Wanderer]

What if you're an athiest, what do you swear on in this case?

Thats not an issue because an atheist won't get elected.

 

[Rono]

What if you're an athiest, what do you swear on in this case?

i think on a law book.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I do not know what the reasons are behind that--whether there is a belief that women are intellectually inferior (although intellectual brilliance isn't something we seem to prize in our leaders), or (too often cited) women are emotionally incondusive to a position where clarity of thought and cold decision might be necessary, or (and I suspect this might be closest to the truth) Men present an aura (even if illusory) of authority much easier than women do--or are perceived to present that aura.

I can buy the aura angle, but I always question whether these so-called theories in other aspects bare any truth at all; such as the incondusiveness with lacking clarity of thought and cold decision making. Lets get back to reality for a moment. In business, most positions are product and/or service based. Jobs revolve around turnarounds, staff management, programme implementation, system restructuring, all this mind numbing very uncreative shit that most (who work in) simply dont even find a need to get personally enmeshed in or struggle with. They're jobs or careers which ask no emotional management as a prerequisite. There's a million job descriptions. How many do we actually reckon hinge on this much puffed up cutting edge 'sending troops into war' scenario that is the very basis for the claiming that women can't do this in the first place? Very few men have jobs like this. Very few jobs like this probably actually exist for anyone to fight over. If there's a concentration of men in, say, the 10 (plucking a number at random here) that do exist, then sure, lets get 5 women employed in the others. If it is for the vast countless millions of other positions, then I say we cut the bullshit and face the possibility that what some claim are holding women incapable is actually a non reality.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Supposedly Harvard might be choosing a female President, I'll believe that when I see it

Uhoh, women are taking over everything-run for your lives guys!