I'm not embarrassed one whit. You really should be though. Or maybe you are really just an idiot.
NY Senate Seat
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
I'm not embarrassed one whit. You really should be though. Or maybe you are really just an idiot.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Again you idiot, it is not CHOOSING a woman over a man that is sexist. THAT is the bullshit strawman that you and Darla continue to toss around.
It IS sexist to say... 'men need not apply'... or 'no matter what a man will not get this seat'. That is without question SEXIST.
As for the second definition, I am glad to see that YOU can simply re-write the definition so that it can fit what you WANT it to mean.
Sex and gender are most certainly synonymous. So quit being a dolt.
What is embarrassing is actually suggesting that searching for the absolute best of the candidates is out, we can only search for the best of a sexual subset. (It may be that a person of that subset is the best, but that has never been my argument here.)
I find that seriously flawed, and if I was a governor even if I was using such criteria I certainly wouldn't announce it.
I do not think that if we are going to become the society we want to see that such a path is where we want to go. I think that negating certain people based on such inanities is only a path backwards.
BTW - So far I haven't seen a man mentioned that could match most of the females that are suggested for that seat anyway.
I think that pretending that you cannot see what I am saying, to understand such a point of view or why it exists, is not just pretense, it is purposeful ignorance. To pretend it is because of sexism is deliberate retardation of the promise of an otherwise fruitful mind.
Oy. OK. You win, particularly on that last point. You, an upper middle class single white male over 40, are the board resident expert on sexism, racism and the respective definitions of sex and gender.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Hello Pot! Meet the Kettle! There's a fire around here somewhere.
Each person is representing an opinion. Even you, Mr. Expert.
I just kind of cut you off a while back after you dropped penis envy in the discussion. I think I've told you the value I place on your opinion.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Lets see, when I post the dictionary definitions, somehow they become 'mine'? Yet, when YOU try to change the dictionary's definition, somehow that makes you right?
Do a search on synonyms for Gender. Tell me whether or not 'Sex' is a synonym.
Side note... I am 37. Don't age me bastard!
Again, an excuse to not attempt to take part in a larger discussion.
Weak. Is this the best you can do?
I explained what I was doing and why, it wasn't pretty, true. I was trying to get under a specific person's skin. I hit a different target. A weaker one with an apparent lack of intellectual honesty.
Attempting to digest why you would suggest that we should no longer use the content of the character to define people and should reject people based on sex, I tried to draw somebody into a further discussion using what I knew would "insult" them. (I agree, I should have been more subtle but I had limited time.)
Now, I would like to know why, again, suggesting that we request a person to draw from the pool of all qualified and select the best is sexism to you?
The dictionary definition of "sexism" is hardly precise and hardly exhaustive. I concede that selecting a woman over a man is discriminatory in the broad sense of the term. But that doesn't mean it is sexist. Sexism involves sex-based animus. Just like racism involves race-based animus.
And if you want to continue using sex and gender interchangeably because Roget says they are synonyms feel free. I was just trying to help you out.
I would like all of us to aim a bit higher. Instead of measuring the size and shape of the muscle, why not measure the size and shape of the leadership ability and select the best regardless of any of the inane separating factors written into law?
Why should such inane criteria be considered at all?
I never said that the bolded is sexist. I merely said that doing the opposite is not sexist, i.e. it is not sexist to look for a woman to replace Hillary in the Senate.
And my point is that it is unnecessarily limiting, and directly opposite to the idea of selecting the best and measuring by the content of their character rather than their sex, color, et al.
Either we set examples in a positive direction, or we maintain that the only power of government to set examples is in the negative.
It hasn't been my personal opinion that it is sexism to select only from women, just that it is opposite of the goal that most would aim towards.
Who decided the sex (or race) of the appointee relative to the resigning Senator is inane in light of the fact that 85% of the Senate is male and 95% of the Senate is white? That's not "inane" in my view.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Again, QUIT WITH YOUR IGNORANT STRAWMAN. NO ONE is saying that simply selecting a woman over a man is sexism. Not once has that been stated.
IT IS ELIMINATING MEN FROM ANY CONSIDERATION THAT IS SEXIST.
As you stated, sexism involves sex-based animus.... such as 'men need not apply'
My point is that given the demographic makeup of the Senate, it is not "unnecessarily limiting." It is necessarily limiting and has zero impact on the quality of potential appointees. Surely there are several abundantly qualified women among the 10,000,000 or so living in NY.
And your platitudes are growing tiresome.
Sex-based animus, as in the belief that men are inherently inferior to women and hence undeserving of consideration. That's not what is going on here.
Basically, what I am saying is... In a much smaller context... That the end does not justify the means.
IMO, so far among the candidates mentioned in every opinion piece I have seen the men have not measured up. It appears that Darla is correct and that a woman will be selected, but I don't think it will be because the Governor limited himself to only women candidates.
IMO, so far among the candidates mentioned in every opinion piece I have seen the men have not measured up. It appears that Darla is correct and that a woman will be selected, but I don't think it will be because the Governor limited himself to only women candidates.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
animos does not mean that it is a belief that the man is inferior to women.
It really gets tiring when you continually try to twist definitions into what you WANT them to mean.
an⋅i⋅mus /ˈænəməs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [an-uh-muhs] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity.
2. purpose; intention; animating spirit.
3. (in the psychology of C. G. Jung) the masculine principle, esp. as present in women (contrasted with anima ).
As are yours. It is unnecessarily limiting. Either you get the best based on merit, or you get a platitude and wind up harming your own cause for the longer term while cheering a short term victory.
The end that you seek will take longer to reach because people are not measured by the stated goal, instead they are measured by set of standards based in such tangibles as sex organs and pigmentation. Hypocrisy isn't just tempting to those in religion, but it is the largest thing that people will point out negative about a religion.