Why when a woman is running is it called a "Woman's Card"...when never in the history of the US ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's never been called a "man's card" in US History when all of the men have run (including a black man). So why now, is it just called a "woman's card" when Hillary is running

It’s never been called a “man card” because the men who have run have not run on their gender.
Hillary has repeatedly said that it’s time to have a woman in the WH. That is playing the woman card.
If she isn’t trying to play the woman card, she should run on her experience and leave her gender out of it.

They didn't have to run on their gender, friend, because ONLY men were considered qualified to hold the office. Surely you understand the difference.

She is running on her experience. I - and my husband - support her based on her experience. I'm thrilled that she's a woman because I do want that glass ceiling broken, but that's not the reason I support her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's never been called a "man's card" in US History when all of the men have run (including a black man). So why now, is it just called a "woman's card" when Hillary is running

It’s never been called a “man card” because the men who have run have not run on their gender.
Hillary has repeatedly said that it’s time to have a woman in the WH. That is playing the woman card.
If she isn’t trying to play the woman card, she should run on her experience and leave her gender out of it.

Well, she's doing both. She has the experience to be the next president, AND it's about time we had a woman president.

Hence, the woman card. Embrace it. Hillary seems to have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's never been called a "man's card" in US History when all of the men have run (including a black man). So why now, is it just called a "woman's card" when Hillary is running

It’s never been called a “man card” because the men who have run have not run on their gender.
Hillary has repeatedly said that it’s time to have a woman in the WH. That is playing the woman card.
If she isn’t trying to play the woman card, she should run on her experience and leave her gender out of it.

It is actually very late not have a woman president in US and Hillary is eminently more qualified than her male contenders. Its just your prejudice that you cannot see it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think the objection is to the "you should vote for politician X specifically because she is a woman" type of reasoning.

Honestly I am pretty conservative about these things but am not bothered by the "woman card," at least in the political arena.

I am bothered by all the man-bashing posts above and I am certain below me. Some people (men, women) love to dish out but if you ever respond boy do the pearls get clutched.

I am a man and I wrote that we hold the rest of the deck. We do. It's a fact. And there are men have a problem with losing this privileged position.

1. They don't want to be careful about the things they say about women. They call it PC crap to feel better about it, but they are uncomfortable that their old habits are unacceptable. They don't like being told that what they do is not OK.

2. They are suspicious of women who move up the ranks in their company. When these women get promoted, they come up with lots of excuses about it. You have heard the excuses, so I don't need to enumerate them.

3. When a politician or a company supports policies that women heavily support, these men grumble and complain and call it pandering. It's not pandering to care about issues that affect 50% of the population. It's not pandering to take up issues important to 50% of the population.

Sorry but this is all true. And it's not all men, and probably not most men. So I don't have a problem calling it what it is. These are the guys who are not adapting to the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's never been called a "man's card" in US History when all of the men have run (including a black man). So why now, is it just called a "woman's card" when Hillary is running

It’s never been called a “man card” because the men who have run have not run on their gender.
Hillary has repeatedly said that it’s time to have a woman in the WH. That is playing the woman card.
If she isn’t trying to play the woman card, she should run on her experience and leave her gender out of it.

It is actually very late not have a woman president in US and Hillary is eminently more qualified than her male contenders. Its just your prejudice that you cannot see it!

No, not my prejudice. I don’t agree with her politics or her proposed policies. I don’t trust her judgment. I don’t believe she is trustworthy.
Believe me, there are plenty of reasons why I won’t vote for her. Her gender has nothing to do with it.
And, I don’t consider her qualified. Serving in a particular office does not make one qualified. Her performance in her previous roles is what counts, and that performance was severely lacking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's never been called a "man's card" in US History when all of the men have run (including a black man). So why now, is it just called a "woman's card" when Hillary is running

It’s never been called a “man card” because the men who have run have not run on their gender.
Hillary has repeatedly said that it’s time to have a woman in the WH. That is playing the woman card.
If she isn’t trying to play the woman card, she should run on her experience and leave her gender out of it.

It is actually very late not have a woman president in US and Hillary is eminently more qualified than her male contenders. Its just your prejudice that you cannot see it!

No, not my prejudice. I don’t agree with her politics or her proposed policies. I don’t trust her judgment. I don’t believe she is trustworthy.
Believe me, there are plenty of reasons why I won’t vote for her. Her gender has nothing to do with it.
And, I don’t consider her qualified. Serving in a particular office does not make one qualified. Her performance in her previous roles is what counts, and that performance was severely lacking.

You trust Donald Trump's judgment? You find him trustworthy? You consider him qualified to serve as president? You're a man, right?

[Anonymous]

I'll admit it. All else being equal, I would choose the female candidate over the male candidate, because I believe representation based on identity matters (there's actually a fairly large body of research to support this). It matters that our first black President wasn't elected until 232 years after the founding of our country...and it matters that in our 240 year history we've never elected a woman, a non-Christian, an hispanic, an Asian, etc.

As it turns out, between Trump and Clinton all else is decidedly not equal, so Clinton's gender-identity doesn't need to be a factor at all in consideration of voting for her. On the flip side, I would not vote for Trump even if he were a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the objection is to the "you should vote for politician X specifically because she is a woman" type of reasoning.

Honestly I am pretty conservative about these things but am not bothered by the "woman card," at least in the political arena.

I am bothered by all the man-bashing posts above and I am certain below me. Some people (men, women) love to dish out but if you ever respond boy do the pearls get clutched.

I am a man and I wrote that we hold the rest of the deck. We do. It's a fact. And there are men have a problem with losing this privileged position.

1. They don't want to be careful about the things they say about women. They call it PC crap to feel better about it, but they are uncomfortable that their old habits are unacceptable. They don't like being told that what they do is not OK.

2. They are suspicious of women who move up the ranks in their company. When these women get promoted, they come up with lots of excuses about it. You have heard the excuses, so I don't need to enumerate them.

3. When a politician or a company supports policies that women heavily support, these men grumble and complain and call it pandering. It's not pandering to care about issues that affect 50% of the population. It's not pandering to take up issues important to 50% of the population.

Sorry but this is all true. And it's not all men, and probably not most men. So I don't have a problem calling it what it is. These are the guys who are not adapting to the future.

I applaud you. I hope there are many men like you. My DH is one and he is voting for Hillary in general election. He does not feel threatened by strong women, even though he is quite conservative in many ways. I believe it is because of the upbringing you have - his mom is an house-wife, but fairly independent lady. We need a lot of strong women in our home, community and in leadership position to break the cycle of bias that many men and women have. Thanks you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's never been called a "man's card" in US History when all of the men have run (including a black man). So why now, is it just called a "woman's card" when Hillary is running

It’s never been called a “man card” because the men who have run have not run on their gender.
Hillary has repeatedly said that it’s time to have a woman in the WH. That is playing the woman card.
If she isn’t trying to play the woman card, she should run on her experience and leave her gender out of it.

It is actually very late not have a woman president in US and Hillary is eminently more qualified than her male contenders. Its just your prejudice that you cannot see it!

No, not my prejudice. I don’t agree with her politics or her proposed policies. I don’t trust her judgment. I don’t believe she is trustworthy.
Believe me, there are plenty of reasons why I won’t vote for her. Her gender has nothing to do with it.
And, I don’t consider her qualified. Serving in a particular office does not make one qualified. Her performance in her previous roles is what counts, and that performance was severely lacking.

Explain who in this cycle is more qualified to be POTUS than Hillary is and why? Do not give me slogans of the candidates, give me something of substance, policy-wise.

[Anonymous]

I didn't vote for Sarah Palin and never would. I would not have voted for Donna Edwards. So my support of candidates is clearly not driven by the "woman card."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because Trump very cleverly appeals to white men's sense of grievance and resentment. He does it with race and he does it with gender.

White man- racist and sexist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the objection is to the "you should vote for politician X specifically because she is a woman" type of reasoning.

Honestly I am pretty conservative about these things but am not bothered by the "woman card," at least in the political arena.

I am bothered by all the man-bashing posts above and I am certain below me. Some people (men, women) love to dish out but if you ever respond boy do the pearls get clutched.

Please identify the man bashing you claim.

Mostly all of the "men hold all the power" folks. Generally true with some exceptions on the upper levels of society, but I would rather have been a coal miners daughter than a coal miner or would rather have written vletters to the front rather than received them. Not all of us come from rich backgrounds, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Trump very cleverly appeals to white men's sense of grievance and resentment. He does it with race and he does it with gender.

White man- racist and sexist.

Also posts like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the objection is to the "you should vote for politician X specifically because she is a woman" type of reasoning.

Honestly I am pretty conservative about these things but am not bothered by the "woman card," at least in the political arena.

I am bothered by all the man-bashing posts above and I am certain below me. Some people (men, women) love to dish out but if you ever respond boy do the pearls get clutched.

Trump specifically said Clinton would not get even 5% of the vote of she were male. That's sexist, unless you believe being a Senator and Secretary of State don't qualify a person to hold higher office. Trump also said women have it better than men generally. That's "the woman card," according to him. Never having had a female president, knowing exactly one woman was chosen to lead a Fortune 500 company last year, many women see this a little differently.

so a freshman senator from NY is qualified for secretary of state? No, the only reason she was elected senator with no experience other than being the wife of a president. Same for being appointed Secretary.

[Anonymous]

She was more qualified to be president than obama -- did he win because of the "black" card?