NY Senate Seat

I agree that it should probably go to a woman since they make up such a small percentage of Senators, but I also know that it is sexist to choose a candidate based on that parameter.

Doesn't inherently make it a bad thing, but it does fit the literal definition of sexism; i.e. discrimination based on gender.
 
Dungheap said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is PC silliness that is beneath you. If someone says that a man or a woman should not get a seat simply because they are a man or a woman and no other reason then that is sexism.
Perhaps more women should be in the senate for better representation but there are less women running in the primaries as well (at least in the viably electable parties) and that is not due to sexism but that for whatever reason less women than men seem to want to run for public office.
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it is not. But this doesn't depend upon you to understand. Most already do, and our Governor is one of them. That's what is a relief to me. There are now fewer of you, than there are of him.
 
Superfreak said:
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 ).
Click to expand...

That's why he put "sex-based" in front of it for God sakes! are you serious?
 
Darla said:
No, it is not. But this doesn't depend upon you to understand. Most already do, and our Governor is one of them. That's what is a relief to me. There are now fewer of you, than there are of him.
Click to expand...
Again, as I have seen, the lists include people who are male. But the men on the list do not measure up to the women. In this case it will go to the best in the list. IMO that is a good thing.

The governor, as I said I would do if I were the governor, is not suggesting that only women need apply, yet is aiming toward the same goal. At least from the lists I have seen. There may be a story he said that in which I haven't seen yet.

I'm not arguing against the selection of a woman. I am arguing that YOUR suggestion that only women should have been considered is basically directly against the principles that I believe you work towards, or what you would say you work towards.
 
Superfreak said:
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'
Click to expand...

I knew that would get your panties in a bunch when I posted it this morning. :clink:
 
Damocles said:
Again, as I have seen, the lists include people who are male. But the men on the list do not measure up to the women. In this case it will go to the best in the list.

The government, as I said I would do, is not suggesting that only women need apply. At least from the lists I have seen. There may be a story he said that that I haven't seen yet.
Click to expand...

No, he's not going to say so. I don't know if you know of when the last time an ad went out with "white men only need apply"? I'm thinking the idea is out there, since most of the Senate is made up of white males, most of them no smarter than anyone on this board, and some of them quite a bit dumber.

But Paterson, who has really gotten a bum rap right from the start from democrats when they were handing out his office, that he holds! as an exit prize for HIllary if she dropped out of the primary. It's no one's to give. And that level of disrespect led up to that disgusting display on Saturday night live this past Saturday. But he's done some great stuff here already, and he is a supporter of women. It's true NOW was lobbying him, but I never thought they had to. He was gonna do the right thing. If he was the Governor of IL, I think that seat would go to a qualified black candidate. We do actually look for qualified people. Not who looks best strutting around in red pumps.

And for the last time. This is a concept which simply does not depend upon the endorsement or understanding of eithr your or SF. Sorry.

Sing it with me boys!

I'm gonna tell you how it's gonna be
You're gonna get a Kennedy!
 
Darla said:
No, he's not going to say so. I don't know if you know of when the last time an ad went out with "white men only need apply"? I'm thinking the idea is out there, since most of the Senate is made up of white males, most of them no smarter than anyone on this board, and some of them quite a bit dumber.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly what I said I would do.... (wow).

But Paterson, who has really gotten a bum rap right from the start from democrats when they were handing out his office, that he holds! as an exit prize for HIllary if she dropped out of the primary. It's no one's to give. And that level of disrespect led up to that disgusting display on Saturday night live this past Saturday. But he's done some great stuff here already, and he is a supporter of women. It's true NOW was lobbying him, but I never thought they had to. He was gonna do the right thing. If he was the Governor of IL, I think that seat would go to a qualified black candidate. We do actually look for qualified people. Not who looks best strutting around in red pumps.

And for the last time. This is a concept which simply does not depend upon the endorsement or understanding of eithr your or SF. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Okay, what part of... (paraphrasing an earlier post) "If I were governor I would take a larger list, pare it down, and have the women outshine the men then select the best of them." or "It appears that the governor is doing exactly like I said I would." means that I don't "understand"?

What I don't understand is your support that there shouldn't even have been men considered at all. As I said, I believe that it goes directly against all the things you say you support. It was what I have been saying from the beginning. Men should be on the list and they should fail in comparison.

Sing it with me boys!

I'm gonna tell you how it's gonna be
You're gonna get a Kennedy!
Click to expand...

Now that is nepotism, a dynasty and a bad idea IMO. Not because she is a woman.
 
Onceler said:
Well, I support Caroline Kennedy, not just because she's a woman, but also because her last name is Kennedy, and I like saying the word "Kennedy" when conservatives are around, and it will give me a good excuse to say it more often.

"Kennedy"...it sounds cool. It doesn't even really rhyme with anything.
Click to expand...


The name Kennedy represents nothing more than a dynasty of politicians that didn't really accomplish anything.

If any Kennedy were up for election at any level, I would choose not to vote for them with the simple goal of not supporting that power structure. The same goes for Clinton, Bush, etc.

Political families are a big problem, and the Kennedy's haven't managed to accomplish much more than giving people conspiracy theories to think about.

Dungheap said:
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.
Click to expand...

When it comes to appointing someone to a position, you should choose the BEST qualified person to that position regardless of anything else, including gender and race. You dont go for the 'best woman' or the 'best black man', you go for the best PERSON, period. To argue anything else is entirely counter productive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top