Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    29 Jan '17 21:24
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/21/madam-president-are-female-leaders-better-for-women

    "Madam president: are female leaders better for women?
    Hillary Clinton would have done more for women than Trump, but less
    than Bernie Sanders. What is ‘women’s politics’, anyway – and who does it best?"
    --Zoe Williams (21 January 2017)

    "When Donald Trump won, the notion of a broad, instinctive female
    solidarity was brutally exposed as myth: open misogyny in word,
    demeanour and the shape of a dozen sexual assault allegations
    deterred only a minority of women voters."

    In fact, 52-53% of white women voted for Donald Trump.
    I have criticized Suzianne and Phranny because they seemed to cling to this
    myth of 'broad, instinctive female solidarity" even after the numbers said otherwise.

    "I was looking in the wrong place for the value of the idea. It was never
    meant to be a coherent programme of female-friendly actions, to which
    all right-thinking women would subscribe. It may be that there is no such
    thing as a women’s issue – but still, on any given subject, there is
    always a distinct women’s perspective, without which you will never
    meaningfully understand it. Feminism is always in the detail, in each
    granular answer, in every individual woman."

    And that emphasizes the importance of intersectionality (which 'White Feminists' like to deny).
    Every individual woman is affected by her class, race, religion, and
    circumstances as well as by gender.

    "Having female leaders is clearly useful. But a woman at the top can
    never, even with feminist bona fides up the wazoo, bring the complete
    perspective of her gender."

    That's why it's important that a women's movement include *all* voices, not
    only those of affluent straight white women who are photogenic on television.
  2. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    29 Jan '17 22:35
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/21/madam-president-are-female-leaders-better-for-women

    "Madam president: are female leaders better for women?
    Hillary Clinton would have done more for women than Trump, but less
    than Bernie Sanders. What is ‘women’s politics’, anyway – and who does it best?"
    --Zoe Williams (21 January 2017)

    "When Don ...[text shortened]... *all* voices, not
    only those of affluent straight white women who are photogenic on television.
    any opinion that claims someone is better because of their gender is sexist.

    this question is just as stupid than "are blacks prone to violence?", "are jews greedy" or "are gay men effeminate queens with lips and a passion for fashion"


    she even admits that sanders would have been much better for women (and everyone else for that matter) than clinton.


    you always judge an individual by one's merits, actions and qualities. not by one's genitals.
    yes, i would prefer Elizabeth warren to most republican males but i would prefer many republican males instead of Marine Le Pen, or Betsy DeVos or Kelyanne Conway if she ever decides to run for office.

    So i am calling this article garbage journalism.
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    29 Jan '17 22:571 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    any opinion that claims someone is better because of their gender is sexist.

    this question is just as stupid than "are blacks prone to violence?", "are jews greedy" or "are gay men effeminate queens with lips and a passion for fashion"

    she even admits that sanders would have been much better for women (and everyone else for that matter) than clinton. ...[text shortened]... nway if she ever decides to run for office.

    So i am calling this article garbage journalism.
    Zahlanzi shows his abysmal 'reading comprehension', attacking a 'strawman'.
    Zoe Williams never argues that 'female leaders are *necessarily* better for women'.
    Her article's title is a *rhetorical question*, which Zahlanzi apparently fails to understand.

    Now many women would argue (plausibly enough) that a woman leader has experienced
    life as a woman and thus will comprehend women's issues better than most men could.
    A woman who has experienced sexual assault or harassment has a motive to comprehend
    these issues better than someone who has not. But a woman leader does not necessarily
    empathize (e.g. Margaret Thatcher) with other women because she must take into
    account other factors, particularly her political self-interests.
  4. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35854
    29 Jan '17 23:00
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "Having female leaders is clearly useful. But a woman at the top can
    never, even with feminist bona fides up the wazoo, bring the complete
    perspective of her gender."
    That's because some people love to talk about feminism in a way that includes racism and every other "-ism" in the world, just so they can stop talking about feminism and talk about those "-ism"s instead.

    You wanna talk about that, go ahead, but stop demeaning feminists by insisting they are racist, just because they don't look at race when talking about gender.

    Inclusivity always beats "intersectionality". Do not "divide and conquer" the feminist movement just because it contains an "intersection" that you don't personally care for.
  5. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    29 Jan '17 23:103 edits
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    That's because some people love to talk about feminism in a way that includes racism and every other "-ism" in the world, just so they can stop talking about feminism and talk about those "-ism"s instead.

    You wanna talk about that, go ahead, but stop demeaning feminists by insisting they are racist, just because they don't look at race when talking about ...[text shortened]... feminist movement just because it contains an "intersection" that you don't personally care for.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feminism

    "White feminism is a pejorative term for forms of feminism that focus on the struggles
    of well-off white women while failing to address the distinct forms of oppression faced
    by women of colour and women lacking other privileges. Such feminism is regarded
    by some authors to be in opposition to intersectionality and black feminism."

    Suzianne keeps showing that she's a 'White Feminist' who's willfully blind to the
    concerns and voices of many diverse (and generally less privileged) women.
    I already have quoted several of these voices, and Suzianne has refused to listen.
    I am happy to stand with many diverse women (including some white women) in
    opposing the hypocritical racist brand of 'White Feminism' endorsed by Suzianne.

    Suzianne may enjoy the support of all the racist (and often sexist) white men who are
    eager to deny that white people (including 'White Femiinists' ) could be racist.
    Suzianne hypocritically loves to attack 'conservative' white men for being racist, but she
    prefers to ignore racism among white women and deny racism among 'liberal' white women.
  6. Joined
    23 Nov '11
    Moves
    23143
    29 Jan '17 23:43
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feminism

    "White feminism is a pejorative term for forms of feminism that focus on the struggles
    of well-off white women while failing to address the distinct forms of oppression faced
    by women of colour and women lacking other privileges. Such feminism is regarded
    by some authors to be in opposition to intersec ...[text shortened]... but she
    prefers to ignore racism among white women and deny racism among 'liberal' white women.
    To ensure that the (January 2017 Women's) march was led by women of differing races and backgrounds, Vanessa Wruble, co-founder and Head of Campaign Operations, brought on Tamika D. Mallory, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour to serve as National Co-Chairs alongside Bland.[35][39] Former Miss New Jersey USA Janaye Ingram served as Head of Logistics.[40] Organizers stated that they were "not targeting Trump specifically" and that the event was "more about being proactive about women's rights". Sarsour called it "a stand on social justice and human rights issues ranging from race, ethnicity, gender, religion, immigration and healthcare".[4][41] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Women's_March

    Here is a visual for Duchesse since her reading abilities are in question. http://www.wmagazine.com/story/womens-march-on-washington-activists-organizers
    I suppose Duchesse will claim these women are not black enough or Muslim enough, etc.

    It would appear that Duchesse has her own narrow standards of inclusiveness. It also appears that no one, outside of a Duchesse64 clone, God forbid, could possibly meet her standards. Duchesse, you are part of the continuing problem that divides those who are trying to come together in understanding, empathy, compassion and love in the United States and throughout the world to improve life for all. I have no doubt that there are others who also feel the march was somehow bogus and meaningless or even racist because there were far too few people of color in the streets. The resistance to Trump's fascist plans is growing by the hour. People of many nationalities, races, gender identity, religious beliefs, educational backgrounds, socio-economic levels are coming together because they are appalled by what is happening. This does not discount that there are vast numbers of whites, both men and women, who voted for Trump and support his fascist plans. Suzianne and I are not among those individuals.
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    29 Jan '17 23:48
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Zahlanzi shows his abysmal 'reading comprehension', attacking a 'strawman'.
    Zoe Williams never argues that 'female leaders are *necessarily* better for women'.
    Her article's title is a *rhetorical question*, which Zahlanzi apparently fails to understand.

    Now many women would argue (plausibly enough) that a woman leader has experienced
    life as a woman ...[text shortened]... en because she must take into
    account other factors, particularly her political self-interests.
    so you make one hasty generalization "women leaders might comprehend women's issues better than men" then immediately continue with "well it's not always the case". (which is unsurprising since painting large groups of humans with the same brush is rarely helpful)
    do you understand how illogical that is? do you understand what pointless drivel this is?

    should we also think about electing poor uneducated people from rural areas? because a yale graduate could never understand poor uneducated issues. except of course for the ones that do.


    like eladar said (and i hate you for giving me an opportunity to agree with that scumbag) are male leaders better for males? are black leaders better for blacks?

    or should you ask if a leader is better or worse for all people?
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jan '17 00:02
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    so you make one hasty generalization "women leaders might comprehend women's issues better than men" then immediately continue with "well it's not always the case". (which is unsurprising since painting large groups of humans with the same brush is rarely helpful)
    do you understand how illogical that is? do you understand what pointless drivel this is?

    ...[text shortened]... k leaders better for blacks?

    or should you ask if a leader is better or worse for all people?
    It's absurd for Zahlanzi to act as though there's no issue that women cannot generally understand better than men.

    Women have some important experiences that are fundamentally different from men's.
    Women understand experiences such as menstruation, conception, pregnancy, and
    childbirth more intimately than men ever could.
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jan '17 00:422 edits
    Originally posted by Phranny
    To ensure that the (January 2017 Women's) march was led by women of differing races and backgrounds, Vanessa Wruble, co-founder and Head of Campaign Operations, brought on Tamika D. Mallory, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour to serve as National Co-Chairs alongside Bland.[35][39] Former Miss New Jersey USA Janaye Ingram served as Head of Logistics.[40] Organize ...[text shortened]... voted for Trump and support his fascist plans. Suzianne and I are not among those individuals.
    As a 'White Feminist', Phranny may not comprehend that non-white women are very diverse.
    I never claimed that the 2017 US Women's March was all white. I expected that the organizers
    could find some non-white women to appear as symbols and even be allowed to speak.
    Some non-white women are willing to collaborate with (or have been coopted by) 'White Feminists'.
    But these non-white women don't represent all or even most non-white women in all their diversity.

    One African-American woman liked to say that Senator Strom Thurmond (a notorious
    racist in politics) was *not* a racist and was considerate toward African-Americans.
    She said this because Strom Thurmond was her father (he impregnated a black maid).
    But she did not represent most African-Americans' attitudes toward Strom Thurmond.

    I already have quoted several women who strongly criticized both 'White Feminism' in
    general or the 2017 US Women's March in particular. Many non-white women prefer
    to boycott the organizations or events dominated by hypocritical 'White Feminists'.

    Phranny disingenously likes to act, however, as though I were the only woman who has
    any objection to 'White Feminism' or to the statements or actions of 'White Feminists'.
    Phranny has a long record of making hateful false accusations against me, including
    her claim that I hate all Jews (Phranny's a fanatical supporter of Israel and I am a critic
    of Israel's oppression of the Palestinians), her claim that I hate all white people, or her
    implied accusation that I am a Muslim (as though being a Muslim must be bad).

    I already know that Suzianne and Phranny (white women with college educations) did not vote
    for Donald Trump. (But 45% of white women with college educations did vote for Donald Trump.)
    I have objected to Suzianne's and Phranny's disingenuous past attempts to imply that
    most white women voted against Donald Trump, thus excusing them from responsibility.
    In fact, most white women did vote for Donald Trump, while few non-white women voted for him.

    I prefer to stand with the diverse women (including some white women) who reject 'White Feminism'.
    Some non-white women may regard 'White Feminism' as enough of a 'lesser evil' to be
    worth accepting as an ally in a time of need, and I can respect their judgment.
  10. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1407
    30 Jan '17 00:493 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/21/madam-president-are-female-leaders-better-for-women

    "Madam president: are female leaders better for women?
    Hillary Clinton would have done more for women than Trump, but less
    than Bernie Sanders. What is ‘women’s politics’, anyway – and who does it best?"
    --Zoe Williams (21 January 2017)

    "When Don ...[text shortened]... *all* voices, not
    only those of affluent straight white women who are photogenic on television.
    Normally I would agree with you. Women seem to be to be very capable and stable leaders, and have proved this on many occasions.

    However-

    Your nasty, ugly, disrespectful, and spiteful comments about myself and 98% of the other people here encourages me to tell you (and only you) to go somewhere and hit your backside with 2 hot, flaming boards 50 times! Then lock yourself in a steel chastity cage, and channel all that unreleased energy into something other than insulting people! 😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jan '17 02:011 edit
    Originally posted by mchill
    Normally I would agree with you. Women seem to be to be very capable and stable leaders, and have proved this on many occasions.

    However-
    Your nasty, ugly, disrespectful, and spiteful comments about myself and 98% of the other people here encourages me to tell you (and only you) to go somewhere and hit your backside with 2 hot, flaming boards 50 times! l all that unreleased energy into something other than insulting people! 😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲
    The lying troll Mchill embodies the concept of an ad hominem argument.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    The troll Mchill presumably would refuse to agree with me when I write 1 + 1 = 2.
    So what? Mchill's agreement or disagreement does not alter the value of what I write.
  12. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56379
    30 Jan '17 02:58
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/21/madam-president-are-female-leaders-better-for-women

    "Madam president: are female leaders better for women?
    Hillary Clinton would have done more for women than Trump, but less
    than Bernie Sanders. What is ‘women’s politics’, anyway – and who does it best?"
    --Zoe Williams (21 January 2017)

    "When Don ...[text shortened]... *all* voices, not
    only those of affluent straight white women who are photogenic on television.
    Thatcher, Gandhi, Theresa May, Le Pen.... yeah, I agree with the article: women aren't always good for women.
  13. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    30 Jan '17 09:13
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    It's absurd for Zahlanzi to act as though there's no issue that women cannot generally understand better than men.

    Women have some important experiences that are fundamentally different from men's.
    Women understand experiences such as menstruation, conception, pregnancy, and
    childbirth more intimately than men ever could.
    "It's absurd for Zahlanzi to act as though there's no issue that women cannot generally understand better than men."
    maybe you really believe i said this. allow me to explain. the issue is about women LEADERS. you know, the individuals meant to lead all, not just women. the individuals who can't be picked because they empathize with one group's problems because there are many groups with different problems. they must be capable in their line of work and have a reasonable capacity for empathy towards all groups.

    of course a woman is better to be in charge of a woman shelter. of course a woman should be councilor for female victims of abuse.

    "Women understand experiences such as menstruation, conception, pregnancy, and
    childbirth more intimately than men ever could."
    and? tell me a specific job for which those are requirements. i wouldn't assign a head of gynecology on that alone. after all you don't have to have experienced cancer to be a good oncologist.
  14. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1407
    30 Jan '17 15:59
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    The lying troll Mchill embodies the concept of an ad hominem argument.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    The troll Mchill presumably would refuse to agree with me when I write 1 + 1 = 2.
    So what? Mchill's agreement or disagreement does not alter the value of what I write.
    Mchill presumably would refuse to agree with me when I write 1 + 1 = 2.



    That is 100% correct, and you can thank yourself (and your warm and friendly personality) or it! 😞
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jan '17 22:58
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "It's absurd for Zahlanzi to act as though there's no issue that women cannot generally understand better than men."
    maybe you really believe i said this. allow me to explain. the issue is about women LEADERS. you know, the individuals meant to lead all, not just women. the individuals who can't be picked because they empathize with one group's problems be ...[text shortened]... logy on that alone. after all you don't have to have experienced cancer to be a good oncologist.
    Zahlanzi keeps disingenuously attacking 'strawmen' that he sets up.
    Contrary to Zahlanzi's 'strawman', neither Zoe Williams nor I have argued that any woman
    should become a leader simply for being a woman in the absence of all other qualifications.
Back to Top