In keeping with today’s earlier discussions on progressivism and the “diversity” agenda, here’s a bit from the SF Chronicle on former exile Michelle Bachelet being named Chile’s president (h/t Terry Hastings):
In her first official act as president, Bachelet swore in her 20-member Cabinet of 10 men and 10 women. She has promised to have equal numbers of men and women in some 300 decision-making posts.
She plans legislation that would require political parties to include a certain percentage of women in their lists of candidates in congressional and municipal elections.
Proportionalism.
Because of course, if the last 40 years of international social consciousness raising has taught us anything, its that all vaginas think the same, just as all penises think the same.
And of course, we all know that color is a reliable indication of thought, as well.
Which, what can you say? YOU’VE COME A LONG WAY, BABY!
Aren’t we doing this in Iraq and Afghanistan? If its good enough for that, sounds like Chile can do it.
RACIST!
This whole thinking genital thing is deeply, deeply wrong and is an offense to God.
This is why we should’ve put a stop to genetic engineering research when we had the chance.
Well, Actus, if all women don’t think alike, and all men don’t think alike, but proportionalism attempts to “equalize” the way men and women think, then what has really been accomplished?
Go ahead, push that thought a little.
(I knew that you could.)
Does it really equalize it? Do you think that requiring spaces for women candidates in the iraqi parliament is the equivalent of forcing a particular viewpoint there—besides the viewpoint of women belonging in parliament?
I think what’s trying to be accomplished is opening up patriarchical societies.
Where do you get the idea that its about ‘thinking the same’ or ‘equalizing’ ?
Actus, how about you actually address whether this policy is good or bad – the Socratic crap wearied me in law school back in the early 90’s … I haven’t missed it, ya know?
I’ve been told its good for Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe these statements, but I do know little about those societies so I can’t analyze them too deeply. I don’t know much about chilean society, other than the fact that it may have the same patriarchical qualities as a society I am familiar with: brazil—probably more, as OI’ve heard its more catholic.
So if you can’t find enough men or women, does the whole show close? What happens when an insufficient number of women apply for the jobs? Will they have to use fewer men?
I wanna know.
Very good, Actus. You moved the quarter of an inch. Now get past the superficial similarities and ask yourself: why would you adopt a measure requiring 10 women and 10 men each for every decision-making post in your government unless you thought an equal amount of women would make a difference against the same number of men?
Then ask yourself: Are women really so different from men when they govern? Given power and opportunity, women have been no more immune to exploiting boys, killing their children, or becoming serial killers than men. At the helm of countries, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi & Margaret Thatcher were very aggressive leaders.
“Do you think that requiring spaces for women candidates in the Iraqi parliament is the equivalent of forcing a particular viewpoint thereâ€â€besides the viewpoint of women belonging in parliament?
I think what’s trying to be accomplished is opening up patriarchal societies.”
“Women candidates in the Iraqi government†do indeed equal “trying to open up patriarchal societiesâ€Â, and it most certainly is the particular viewpoint of a more equal society. Whether it will be freer is another question.
In most cases you shouldn’t need proportionality where women can vote, and is in any case preferable to the assumption that women (and any other group you want to name) think identically instead of individually.
Afghanistan and Iraq aren’t much like Chile, and it’s hard to see what Bachelet’s identity politics will lead to except a re-tribalization, along left-wing lines, of Chile’s democracy.
all penises think the same
I think this is actually true.
Are you worried about the result of the decisions being made or the result upon society from women advancing and having decisionmaking power? I think the goal is the second, not the first.
And even if you think that it would make a difference, that doesn’t have to be because all women/men are the same.
Aren’t women 51% of the population? And here, they have a glass ceiling of only 50% proportion of the seats!!!!
SEXISTS!
And what would we do with chicken-penises like actus, who technically have the wedding-tackle, but lack the stones.
Would actus be fully represented by a man, or a woman? Should we reinstitute court eunuchs to cover the ‘third-way’ orientation?
Oh, the bountiless intellectual riches of liberalism—its a beautiful thing.
Aren’t we doing this in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Jeepers, no! Whatever is being done is being done by Iraqis and Afghanis.
Cordially…
Its all about the insecurity.
Come on, Jeff. Is it really so bad? Isn’t it just a gesture, to start with? To get people USED to the idea of women in leadership? The merit-based stuff can come later.
Too many elections in the US have focused on “he’d be the first black mayor of…” or, “she’d be the first woman in…”
Get the “firsts” out of the way immediately. Then, elections will be about issues, not gender/race/whatever.
Theoretically.
C’mon actus, you’ve been hanging out here long enough to know better than that with this group.
It is true that this political agenda is indicative of a prevailing sentiment in the idea that ‘women think different than men.’ I agree with you on that, Jeff.
However, the counter claim to your opposition of this agenda would go as follows: Gender and racial sentiments already existed in our cultural and political spheres before we began to stradegize for proportional equality. The type of egalitarianism that Bachelet is utilizing, recognizes that gender stereotypes are inevitable and, therefore, addresses them openly and directly. For the only alternative, from this view, would be to simply ignore the presence of socially/culturally constructed female and male differences. This alternative (that seems to be what your suggesting) would allow these racial/gender stereotypes to seep (unquestioned and unregulated) into political and institutional practices.
How are gender and racial stereotypes “inevitable”? And how does reinforcing that notion—by suggesting that the only way women will ever be “equal” is if certain elites proclaim them so by fiat—help dispel the myth that without social engineering, women would “inevitably” underperform men.
The real problem is a lack of patience. And in our rush to engineer superficial solutions, we send the wrong messages for the long term.
The argument in Afghanistan and Iraq was that seats needed to be guaranteed as a “floor” so that women’s interests would be heard in a Muslim, deeply Islamic society as Islam itself excludes women from all roles of society.
It seems a sensible measure in any country afflicted by the curse of Islam.
By contrast Chile is a relatively modern society that is FAR different than Brazil. Unlike Brazil there is far less polarization along class lines, far less criminal gangs running large parts of the nation; and no white-black division since Chile did not have large numbers of African Slaves (and slavery itself until the very late 1880’s).
Chile until Pinochet had prided itself on moderate, technocratic, and “advanced” societies and government. Even Pinochet though a tyrant and someone who set High School kids on fire or threw them out of helicopters over the Pacific was nothing compared to Saddam in either body count totals or proportion of the population murdered. Unlike Saddam, Pinochet actually stepped DOWN when he called a referendum, forced to do so by rival generals etc.
Yes Chile suffers from generic Latin American sexism, machismo, and other deficiencies of culture endemic to Latin America and chiefly responsible for that continent being such a cesspit. It suffers it LESS than nearly all other countries in Latin America and has higher literacy, per-capita-income, lower infant mortality rates etc. because it generally is a better ordered society.
Incidentally, Chile makes outstanding wines and exports grapes and other produce to the US.
The new President is just being stupid and grandstanding like your typical progressive IMHO. Chile has serious challenges ahead of it (corruption, inflation, the usual witches brew of government and oligarchs preventing new business investment domestically, particularly competition, and thus the Peronist reliance on the state to provide employment of the last resort).
Far better than dividing her cabinet along gender lines (which is likely to provide non-entities or disasters such as Janet Reno or Madeline Allbright) would be to actually oh I don’t know …
Pick the best person for the jobs.
But hey, celebrate the “progressive” nature of the Cabinet and that the President is a single mother who never married the fathers of her several children as a new social marker. Because that worked out so well for poor African American women.
Insecure? Moi? You wouldn’t happen to be doubting my security with my sexuality, would you? Or my, ahem, caliber of manhood? I can assure you the latter is good enough for my purposes…anyone else’s, hey I’ve got phone numbers, you do a random, scientific survey.
For the former, is that the best you can do? Not really gay-pride, if your best comeback is to call someone, well, gay. Think it over, it’ll come to you.
It is difficult to argue why racial stereotypes are inevitable… it is less a universal fact than it is an emperical one. For example, if we consider, objectively, the fact that there has yet to be a black or female president in the United States and that it is only recently that women have been considered for political office, it is clear that there is a difference in how men and women have been (historically) socialized that has influenced our own political sphere.
The civil rights movement brought ‘naturally assumed’ inequalities (similar to the ones we see between men and women) into focus, allowing for blacks to have opportunities that were not available to them before.
I do agree with your point that such “superficial solutions” can hardly solve the problem in its entirety. I also agree that it can send “wrong messages,” by reinforcing a gap between the two genders.
However, the clam that “women would ‘inevitably’ underperform men” stems only from the fact that social/cultural instutions have thus far kept women from achieving equality. Furthermore, instead of recognizing these norms and institutions we have assumed them to be the ‘natural’ way of things.
Perhaps the best way of eliminating these issues may not be to reinforce the notion of their presence (as you have suggested); however, currently I see no better solution. If you say that the “real problem is lack of patience,” what is it that we should be patient for? Changes in gender perception are not likely to occur naturally without the recognition of their presence in our personal and political lives.
This leads me to ask: in facilitating a more gender inclusive democratic society, what alternative (rather than recognizing the current/historic inequality between genders) would you propose?
Oh, I was talking about myself. You’ve got me read so well. What makes you say I was onto you? The subject was you bringing up genitals in talking about me. Nothing gay about you there.
Who is this “we”? I’m not the one who thinks we need to install people into positions based on their plumbing. Which, again, reinforces the stereotype.
Equality before the law and the right to vote—both of which we have. I’d also suggest a de-emphasizing of the necessity to socially “facilitate” any such thing as “a more gender inclusive democratic society”; we already have one, and typically people who talk about facilititing something we already have are really only talking about molding it to shape their ideal. True equality will come when we recognize the differences between men and women, recognize that, in the majority of those cases, the difference doesn’t preclude either men or women from performing most societal roles, and stop trying to “facilitate” outcomes that the more enlightened of us believe should be the case.
Women enjoy all the legal conditions necessary for their advancement.
But I don’t feel like discussing this anymore, frankly. I’m tired, I’ve done it before, and I find it repugnant and disheartening that anyone within our liberal system could even for a moment stomach the idea of proportional representation based on a superficial attribute that has no bearing whatsoever on anything other than appearances—and that takes away the rights of voters (and women make up a higher percentage of the population) to choose whomever they wish to represent them, regardless of sex or skin color.
– Hmmmm….Maybe actus feels left out because we’re discussing MEN and WOMEN… We should be more sensitive…. (NOT!)
TW: What?….I heard that Sparky!….
/re-embargoing actus after gratitious, well-deserved insult salvo
You know, the Tutsi and Hutu’s did the same thing, these identity class-quotas. The Tutsis were the favored children of their imperialist masters and so had all of the bennies from their rule; better education, better salaries, better positions, though only ten percent of the population. The Hutus came into power, and limited the Tutsis to ten percent of all positions, though the Hutus probably couldn’t match the Tutsi with qualified candidates despite their 9-1 advantage in numbers.
And so governance suffered, because the Hutus were unqualified, had no experience, no competence. And the most powerful social justice is not proportionality, but competent governance, because improper governance leads to corruption, to war, genocide, starvation, sectarian infighting, and on.
Penny-wise, pound foolish. Proportionality repays the small sin of not promoting the class of (largely unqualified, or even uninterested) women, by lowering the standards of governance for all.
Hmmmm… Sounds like you’ve invented a new communal form that “Marx” everyone to be the same, regardless of their capibilities…Sounds kind of Utopian….
Like proper rape, abortion, and contraceptive and laws.
But there are other issues in advancement. Social, religious, educational, economic, and even technological.
Bachelet seems to avoid this problem. She is using her cabinet appointments. She’s acting fully within the wishes of her electorate, at least in the sense that she has followed all the legal conditions that the electorate has placed. Somehow just following the law and legal conditions is not enough for you in this case. The electorate must be more fully represented, in her cabinet.
Unfortunately you have argued past my point by restating the part of your argument that I already agreed with and responding to my question simply by proposing that the proportionalist approach IS the problem (when it is actually a chosen solution for addressing an even larger problem–the problem I asked you to propose an alternate solution to).
Whether you choose to accept that there is a larger problem or to retain the notion that the fact that “women enjoy all the legal conditions necessary for their advancement” is reason enough to believe that they are at equal political standing with men is entirely up to you.
However, you should at least consider that a ‘liberal system’ is an ideal in itself. History has shown that our nation has not always lived up to this ideal. Whether or not we should take the path of proportionilism is still a question to be answered; but, it is clear that there needs to be some form of recognition for the social structures that have prevented the complete embodiment of this liberal ideal.
Being able to rest on the notion that we have already achieved this ideal is a luxury of the privilaged. Progressive movements (such as the one in question) represent an objection against the idea that we have already achieved an ideal liberal democracy.
I will say again (since you have already ignored it twice): PROPORTIONALISM MAY NOT BE BE THE PERFECT SOULTION to this LARGER PROBLEM. However, it does represent progress in so far as it gives recognition to our shortcomings in embodying an ideal liberal democratic system.
No, proportionalism is a false double to true democratic participation. You might as well consider elections to be democracy, at this level of consideration.
You are pursuing HARMONY amongst the citizenry, pure and simple, not mere representation [and if you are not, you are on a fool’s errand]. But HARMONY is deeper than representation; perfect harmony wouldn’t require any proportionality. And this type of identity politics can be corrosive to the national good.
And btw, proportionality would mean that the US could never, ever, have a black president, or a gay one, as such a fellow, or lady, wouldn’t represent America as its interests lay.
Good point.
I will once again state that I am not arguing for proportionalism itself; but, rather I am arguing for the progressive movement it represents.
What is the national good? Most liberal theorists would tell you that ‘the good’ lies in overall active and responsible participation in liberal justice and democracy. Furthermore, many liberal philosophers believe that certain virtues can be instrumental in achieving this ideal state. John Rawls, perhaps the most renown liberal philosopher of this century, agrees that “promoting civic virtues is entirely consistent with liberalism, since virtues are defended as preconditions for liberal justice”(Rawls). This implies that “if our political instituitions are no longer functioning, citizens have an obligation to protect these instituitions from being undermined”(Kymlicka).
In the case where lack of gender HARMONY (as you put it) is putting the correct functioning of our political institutions in jeapordy (by not fully representing all races/genders), we are obligated to take action.
Instrumental use of civic virtue (ie. promoting ‘harmony’
is an accepted part of the liberal democratic ideal. Although I have no desire to give the complete argument for the need of civic virtue in liberal citizenship here, I am prepared to give literary reference for such an arguement.
Actus wrote:
“Are you worried about the result of the decisions being made or the result upon society from women advancing and having decisionmaking power? I think the goal is the second, not the first.”
Just for the record, my comments (above) say 1) that women are already equal wherever they have the right to vote, and 2) that whatever slight genetic differences between men and women, the latter do not in fact govern differently from men.
You know you really shouldn’t bother with elections, either. Just select 10 men and 10 women at random, making sure they proportionally represent all incomed levels, of course.
tw: soviet-> that shit ain’t funny, Goldstein.
I’m not sure I get what Jeff’s objection is. Is he saying that 10 men/10 women is artificial? Yes, just as artificial as 20 men would be, if not a little less so. So what?
Is he saying that there aren’t 10 eminently qualified women (or men) to hold these posts in Chile?
And if color and gender aren’t the reliable indicators of thought Jeff thinks they are, what difference should it make so why does Jeff care?
In any event, back here in America, color and gender ARE considered by the right to be very reliable indicators of thought. Which is why, even today, African-American and women face bigotry and discrimination in politics and in business.
I’ll give you one. Incredibly, not a single musical director of a major symphonic orchestra is a woman, despite the explosion of talented female musicians and conductors. And no, Baltimore is a second rung orchestra, my friends – a fine orchestra but not in the same league as Cleveland or Philadelphia. Marin Alsop deserves a world-class band and eventually she’ll get one. But I’ll be quite amazed if I live long enough to see a woman become the music director of the Met.
Not a major industry, it’s true. Which gives an indication how pervasive gender discrimination is.
So, if they elect a female president/prime minister in Chile, shouldn’t they get a male alternate every other month?
Otherwise, where is the gender equality?
Again, if Chile is so patriachical, why did they elect a woman?
and will she step down 51% of the way through her term to allow a male leader to take over.
Only fair after all.
Maude Lebowski: Does the female form make you uncomfortable, Mr. Lebowski?
The Dude: Uh, is that what this is a picture of?
Maude Lebowski: In a sense, yes. My art has been commended as being strongly vaginal which bothers some men. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina.
The Dude: Oh yeah?
Maude Lebowski: Yes, they don’t like hearing it and find it difficult to say whereas without batting an eye a man will refer to his dick or his rod or his Johnson.
The Dude: Johnson?
Perhaps a Monkee could enlighten us?…
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_8.html#nesmith
Dude.
It’s because of the institutionalized bias, tristero. All those konservatives. After you last showing—wherein you eventually went off to tea with your buddies when caught completely on the wrong side of the Iraq issue—I suppose one could only expect as much as this load:
Uh uh. And why, tristero, family law actually is a grotesque, daily, running violation of the rights of men.
You know, that may actually follow: You’re a rightist when it comes to propping up highly unconstitutional and highly unnatural systems to “equalize” women’s rights. tristero the konservative. tristero the socialist nazi?
See, whining about marketability and ability is one thing, as you predictably prove. Then, whining about said being the “right’s” design, well, for a dishonest moonbat, so is that.
But refusing to continue the thought to then actually face facts—and they’re all out there, pal, and they absolutely, positively flow from institutionalized pro-female bias in government, courts, and social offices—well, that’s just too ironic. Ditto affirmative action—blacks do face discrimination, don’t they?—but I’ll leave that one aside for now.
For now, if you want to run a confidence game on men, you just vote republican next time, hear? Or democrat. After all, both parties hate the single father…
Well, yes, Maggie Thatcher did in fact think differently from every man in the Labor Party (and about 70% of the Tories) but I don’t think that’s what Actus was hoping for…
Nor a rich straight white guy. I honestly don’t see how there could be proportionality in an office held by one person.
In the past century or so of chilean elections.
Maude Lebowski: The plot is simply ludicrous. You can guess where it goes from here.
Dude: He fixes the cable?
Maude Lebowski: Don’t be fatuous, Jeffrey.
6Gun,
Right now, it’s way too early anywhere in America for you to be drinking so heavily, or have hallucinogens now become hip on the right? In any event, when you sober up – or come down – and are capable of writing a coherent comment without the irrelevant digressions, I’ll take the trouble to read it with more care and respond.
Andrew, this type of proportionalism no more represents the people than if there were zero women in office. In fact, the people could be better represented if there were zero women in office, if there was a socialist cabinet position, a nationalist cabinet position, a religious or social democratic cabinet position, so on; that if women’s views were represented through their husbands, that is no worse, and objectively more fair, than if they round up 150 women who are extreme feminists, or extreme pro-life conservatives.
Women and ‘minorities’ should strive for equal participation and equal representation, but if women were much better educated, better driven, or just better politicians, what would be the gain if you reversed this allotment? Would you defend the administration if they capped women’s representation at 50-51%, regardless if Chile’s voters were 75-80% women and women graduated from universities at 70% greater rates than men?
What you’re mistaking, Andrew, is a gesture for substance; no matter which way you cut it, it is better to be in proportion to the movements of the electorate than to the census, because it is the electorate that votes, that pays attention, that will throw you out, that will overthrow you, should it have half the opportunity.
Not surprising that you can’t follow simple cause and effect, tristero. Hint: Follow the money.
Not surprising that in molding fact to fit your preconceptions, that you refuse to face institutionalized bias against fathers. Try follow the gender bias statistics.
Not surprising that being the androgenous urban metro-twit you are, you can’t comprehend fatherhood … or that your every postulation is absurd for lack or relevance or factuality.
Follow the sheer intellectual queerness.
Good idea. /Embargoing tristero.
tw: later.
Yeah, tristero, because symphonic orchestral politics simply IS the bellwether of American chauvinism, right? It simply must be racist-sexist-Islamophobia, right?
Or maybe that symphonic orchestral politics inhabits a world more inbred than an Appalachian backwater; whatever reason women have not been selected, I’m sure, is beyond politics of the vagina. In fact, I would hesitate to name ANY lever of power to get to be a musical director, besides knowing the board of directors. But whatever…
If the candidates are judged on their color and gender first, by definition you judge character and qualifications third, or fourth. Which is to say that, by definition, you exclude some fine candidates from office.
BTW, inquisitors also focused on the racial purity of the people for high office; the Jews and Moors couldn’t hold it. So did the Nazis, so did the Rwandans. This is one of the very, very least noble strains of political governance available.
You’re welcome to defend it.
Maude Lebowski: Do you like sex, Mr. Lebowski?
The Dude: ‘Scuse me?
Maude Lebowski: Sex. The physical act of love. Coitus. Do you like it?
The Dude: I was talking about my rug.
Maude Lebowski: You’re not interested in sex?
The Dude: You mean coitus?
– Discriminating against rugs, or sex on rugs, or padded rugging aimed at preventing knee burns, as opposed to say large Angora throws, or sofa sex with that damn creepy cat watching, is just wrong….Break through the shag ceiling!
– We need to campaign for RUG PORPORTIONALITY!
You’re probably right on that one.
I at least want to point out that my initial statement was more along the lines that proportionalism is not the problem (cause of gender classing) but rather it is a response to a problem that already existed. Somehow, somewhere along the line that statement evolved into an argument for proportionalism.
Wow, who knew all those self-proclaimed “progressives” who call (or draw) Condi Rice as “niggah” or Aunt Jemimah/Uncle Tom – ditto Colin Powell – ditto Thomas Sowell – ditto all non-leftist dusky-hued Americans …
are really closet rightwingers!
Maude Lebowski: Jeffrey…
Dude: (lying on floor) Maude?
Maude Lebowski: (drops robe) Love me!
Dude: That’s my robe…
Andrew, I think that both I and Jeff, I hold this as his view, got that point; almost no reasonable person would disagree that the entire electorate should have their interests represented. I would go further and disagree that every citizen should become political activists…life is entirely too short.
On the other hand, the solution is worse than the problem; would an Administration of 300 Democrats or 300 Republicans better suit you? Would 300 Democrats or Republicans, split down the middle male/female, and sectioned off white/black/asian/hispanic, represent your will better if the party still voted against everything you stood for from abortion, gun control, freedom of speech, foreign policy, education, and economics.
The question is the problem; women and minorities should align themselves on the issues, not their melanin-enhanced vaginas. Everything else is window dressing at best.
Maude Lebowski: Uli Hauff? Her Co-Star in The Beaver Picture?
The Dude: Beaver? Uhhhh, you mean vagina…?
Vercingetorix:
“The question is the problem; women and minorities should align themselves on the issues, not their melanin-enhanced vaginas. Everything else is window dressing at best.”
By putting it this way, you clearly have made melanin-enhanced vaginas the only important issue. Because if gender really is of no importance, then the gender-arbitrary makeup of the cabinet is not worth obsessing over one way or the other.
As for window dressing all those vulvas, I”m not going there.
“Or maybe that symphonic orchestral politics inhabits a world more inbred than an Appalachian backwater; whatever reason women have not been selected, I’m sure, is beyond politics of the vagina. “
You are quite wrong. And what’s this obsession about vaginas? I mean, I like them too, but really…
“BTW, inquisitors also focused on the racial purity of the people for high office; the Jews and Moors couldn’t hold it. So did the Nazis,”
Godwin’s Law. You lose.
The Dude: Fuck sympathy! I don’t need your fuckin’ sympathy, man, I need my fucking johnson!
Donny: What do you need that for, Dude?
Dude: Did you ever hear of “The Seattle Seven”?
Maude Lebowski: Mmmm.
Dude: That was me… and six other guys.
6gun:
Apparently, you still haven’t gotten sober enough to write simple declarative sentences. Must have been quite a bender you’ve been on. And so early in the day!
I do like “postulation.” I’m sure it’s in the Oxford. Glad to see I”m not the only one who knows s/he’s smart and isn’t afraid to show it. You just should learn to lay off the sauce. It’s really not healthy when consumed in excess.
Blond Treehorn Thug: Your name’s Lebowski, Lebowski. Your wife is Bunny.
The Dude: My… my wi-, my wife, Bunny? Do you see a wedding ring on my finger? Does this place look like I’m fucking married? The toilet seat’s up, man!
And if the “issue” is their own subjection? And if these “issues” are not currently expressed by the political parties that take office?
Ideally we’d like to think that they’d be able to allign and take office in order to address this issue.
But it can not be objectively argued that there is not proportionally unequal distribution of goods and resources between different races and genders under our current (and past) administrations. We can either choose to simply ignore the presence of these inequalities (the libertarian approach) or we can choose to examine them . However, we can not deny that there is a clear correlation between these racial/gender inequalities and disproportional representation in government offices. This may (or may not) give rise to the notion that there is something about our electoral and administrative systems that is not functioning correctly.
Proportionalism (whether or not it is a valid approach) represents an attempt to remedy this problem.
This is all I have been trying to say. I don’t believe anything I have said contradicts what you have already stated, so I see no need for further argument.
Fantastic. Here’s another one of mine that holds water: You’re entirely out of your depth—you religiously argue against yourself:
No wonder you’re a tool for moonbat social-levelling…
To repeat what Jeff said above..
Who is this “we” you speak of?
I live in CA with two Vagina Senators. I not only disagree the vast majority of the time with both of ‘em, but I certainly loathe the lesser one and find her particularly indecent.
It is an insult to rational thought to think that a persons interests in government can only effectively be looked after by someone with the same gender, color, religion, creed or sexual orientation.
I’m a man, but I can almost guarantee that Indira Gandhi or Margaret Thatcher or Condi Rice will have my interests in mind more so than John Kerry or Bill Clinton or Karl Marx, who by the way are/were all notorious penis owners.
It is the equality of opportunity that we are after; the forced equality of existence overlooks our individual differences and leads invariably to bloodshed and oppression. It is hard to understand how in the year 2006 there are still some people who do not know that.
Oh, and for reasons I cannot quite put my finger on, I feel like going bowling after work today. Odd.
Godwin’s Law? Nope, doesn’t work on KKKonservatives—we get special immunization because of our very Nazi-like nature.
But of course the very reason the Nazis were so specially hated was their racially motivated policies which had such devastating consequences. That is the very germ of their evil made industrial. I could ignore that tradition and focus on the Confederacy which also had racial laws, Jim Crow which were a body of laws for identity groups, the Inquisition, another stunning chapter of tolerance for religious and ethnic groups, both in the Western Hemisphere and Europe, and so on, so forth. Point is laws that separate people based on ethnic and gender stances, rather than the individual, are often failures. And sometimes they inspire apoclyptic consequences. Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply when you are discussing the root and branch of that particular misbegotten political school.
Identity politics are not liberal thoughts; they are on the exact opposite side. Funny you should find yourself there. Consistently.
Anyways…
[blows harmonica, cues nanotech violin]
So..the curative for obsessing over arbitrary gender makeup is actually TO OBSESS over arbitrary gender makeup??? Are your ears pouring out smoke as the inner cyclotron of circular reasoning spins out of control?
But on the last point; I do not care about the symphonic politics. I care so little if you, Tristero the Dull, explain it to me I will sue you under UN auspices as violating anti-torture laws, and since I have been brutally repressed, I will suicide-bomb your vinyl Liberace collection to the cheers of your fellow travelers.
tw: bike path. Because some folks leave their churches over them. And some folks see endemic racism-sexism-fascism through a goddamn orchestra.
Bunny Lebowski: I’ll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: [Forced laughter] Wonderful woman. We’re all, we’re all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.
Bunny Lebowski: Brandt can’t watch, though, or he has to pay a hundred.
Brandt: [More forced laughter]. That’s marvelous.
The Dude: Uh, I’m just gonna go find a cash machine.
To say that you should agree with every female in office as a prerequisite for equal representation is to say that I should agree with every male in office. Recognizing a correlation in the subjection of gender does not imply that gender thinking be unanimous(such would be an argument that results from the acceptance of proportionalism).
Whether or not you choose to accept that gender inequality in politics is a real issue is up to you. I suggest, however, that you look at the larger picture of things. CA is one of the most progressive states in the US (which happens to be, in many respects, the most progressive country). I am not going to argue this point, as there is enough apparant evidence to prove it if one wishes to take it into recognition.
Women are subjugated right now? Not even in Chile. In Afghanistan, yes, and your argument holds some water there, and certainly in Saudi Arabia, but the answer is to politic. Raise money or ‘awareness’, raise a ruckus, raise voters, raise issues to the platforms, and vote, vote, vote, and run, run, run, and you’ll win, win, win. Or you won’t. But its politics all the same.
BTW, a woman ran and won her country’s highest post…so arguing for subjection is specious, at best. Women also voted for her. Disenfranchised…maybe. Subjected…doubt it.
And Andrew it cannot also be objectively argued that pure equality can ever be had between races and sexes (or ‘genders’
, in this country, within any community of this country, and on. Judging by Europe, Latin America, Africa, old USSR, China, and India’s disastrous experiments with socialism and communism, even marginal parity is disatrous to the national good. And undemocratic at any gloss.
Malibu Police Chief: STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MALIBU, LEBOWSKI!
Andrew
I’m not denying that – in the final count of vaginas and penises – that there are more of the latter than the former, thus an inequality of proportional genitalia when compared to the genitalia of the country (though, where we count those going through surgical sex-reassignment is probably not a looming problem).
What I deny is your assertion that there is a “clear correlation” between genitalia inequality in government AND societal “inequality” between people of differing genitalia and melanin.
I am best represented by people who share my values and ideas..not if they just happen to have vulvas, light olive skin, brown eyes or stand 5’8”.
I don’t collect the books on my shelves by selecting them for the color of the cover.
Vercingetorix has the best summation of the points so far:
If the candidates are judged on their color and gender first, by definition you judge character and qualifications third, or fourth. Which is to say that, by definition, you exclude some fine candidates from office.
One sees this played out in the politics of Washington, D.C. Meaning city politics, of course, not federal government. DC is a haven for left-wing thought, unfortunately, despite prime Beltway location. These people re-elected a corrupt coke addict to major municipal office. Name not necessary, as you have probably guessed who he is. Message seems to be this: “We would rather have a corrupt BLACK mayor than an honest WHITE one!” Corruption vs. honesty not prime consideration here. Skin color is. Bitter inversion of MLK’s ‘Dream’ about not judging others by skin color; now, instead of excusing all sorts of violations visited by whites upon minorities, a non-white skin excuses violations on minority’s part.
Walter: Smokey, this is not ‘Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.
Walter: Am I wrong?
Dude: No you’re not wrong.
Walter: Am I wrong?
Dude: You’re not wrong Walter. You’re just an asshole.
<b>Walter: All right then.
SB: method
acting
Which begs the question: how does one ask to share your vulva?
/ducks flowerpots
Jesus: You ready to be fucked, man? I see you rolled your way into the semis. Dios mio, man. Liam and me, we’re gonna fuck you up.
The Dude: Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
Jesus: Let me tell you something, pendejo. You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash a piece out on the lanes, I’ll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger ‘til it goes “click.”
The Dude: Jesus.
Jesus: You said it, man. Nobody fucks with the Jesus.
Beck, Salt Lick, et al:
We need to put together a treatment for a sequel, and beat the Coen Bros. over the head with it.
My idea: “The Little Lebowski”
Maude is now living and raising “Jeff Jr.” in Lubbock, Texas. The kid gets snatched, so Maude calls in her mother’s favorite PI – The Stranger.
Think “The Ransom of Red Chief” meets “Strange Brew”…
Now… How do we get The Dude to Texas?
Another kidnapping plot? Sure, why not. Hell, the Dude and Walter on a road trip to Texas alone could make for a great movie.
Too bad Donny had to die. But then, I happen to know there’s a Little Lebowski on the way…
Still, I don’t know if the first movie could ever be topped. There are so many subtleties and nuances to it. Every time I watch that movie I catch something new. But that’s what you get when you’re involved with known pornographers…
Route 66 – Walter insists on stopping at “classic” bowling alleys all the way…
Kidnappers: Brandt & Bunny, with Da Fino helping. Go wild.
Where can we get a kid that looks like a young Jeff Bridges? Bad attitude required.
SB: followed
don’t look now
.
I happen to believe that women remain subjugated. I endorse feminist philosophy and its theories of systematic subjugation. While there is a great deal in feminist theory supporting the idea of female subjugation in modern society, I feel that arguing for such theory would be going too off topic.
To better understand the connection between liberal and feminist theory, I suggest reading anything written by Martha Nussbaum.
Andrew, my ex is a feminist, incredibly smart, well-read, and pretty…I doubt you and a gallery full of Nussbaums have either the same wits or same legs as her; and that’s not a knock, buddy.
But if your fundamental assumption is that women are oppressed by invisible chains, systematically, that’s a deal-breaker. There’s a reason why she ended up being an ‘ex’. You can only take so much nonsense before it becomes foolishness.
Speaking of progressivism, how comfortable are the Golden State’s family law nazis with penises?
FIRST NEO NAZI: Tomorrow vee come back und cut off your chonson.
DUDE: Excuse me?
FIRST NEO NAZI: I SAY VEE CUT OFF YOUR CHONSON!
Turn to leave. Over their retreating backs:
SECOND NEO NAZI: Just sink about zat, Lebowski.
FIRST NEO NAZI: Ja, your viggly penis, Lebowski.
You left out the best part:
FLEA: Yah, vee step on it and skvoosh it, yah!
And I happen to agree; injustice is always rampant. But that very inequity illustrates the likelihood—indeed, the reality—of designed subjugation of men by institutionalized gender feminism.
For authoritarians to suggest that in light of this growing reverse discrimination only their own special interest has been a reliable, constitutional guarantee of justice and benevolence is absurd.
To suggest that every last “advance” in “women’s rights” has replaced injustice with justice is hopelessly naive. Rather, the name of that game is pure, unbridled opportunism.
In the words of ‘the dude’ (as seems fitting to the big lebowski theme of this thread), “well man, thats like your own opinion.”
– If you’re planning on a “Bunny does Malibu” book, Crumb would be the perfect Illustrator. If he’d come out of hiding in France that is. “Keep on truckin’, and fat scary tattooed biker chics”….perfect
I have to say that this:
followed immediately by these two:
made me laugh. Only I’m not really sure if it’s “with” or “at”.
Phone’s ringing dude.
Since mine was the post above yours, Andrew142, if you’re referring to my assertion that corruption abounds on both sides of the gender issue, I think it’s not nearly so much opinion as it is fact:
If you’re suggesting that historic fact doesn’t support feminine abuses of men, you’re simply mistaken—criminal, legal, physical, mental, psychological, financial, institutional, governmental, judicial, social, you-name-it.
If you’re also suggesting that all valid corrections feminists have made then miraculously constitute their universal inability to abuse either the system or men, you’re obviously never going to be able to back that up either.
By the way, Dude – “chinaman” is not the preferred nomenclature.
tristero said: ‘In any event, back here in America, color and gender ARE considered by the right to be very reliable indicators of thought. Which is why, even today, African-American and women face bigotry and discrimination in politics and in business.’ [emphasis mine]
OK. I guess that’s why the mainstream Left has national leaders like Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, J. C. Watts and Michael Steele, and spokesmen like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. OH. That’s not the Left, is it?