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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Second post: men "hold the deck" despite lower college graduation rates, lower life expectancy, more homelessness, rampant discrimination in child custody determinations. Obviously a massive overstatement with no nuance.

Third post: white men automatically full of "grievances" and "resentful." Not some, of course, but all. And of course if a white male has a position on an issue involving race / gender it can never be justified.

Anyways I don't even care if people vote for Hillary b/c she is a woman
But you can build up without tearing others down.

If men don't hold the deck, why have there only been male presidents? Why is the composition of the US Congress 80 percent men? You cannot possibly be serious thinking that somehow women are holding all the cards.

Maybe men are relatively advantaged in some ways and women are relatively advantaged in others?

No, that sounds too reasonable to possibly be true.

I think you're right in many of the areas you described above (except maybe college graduation rates...I think there's a lot more complexity driving that one). But life expectancy, homelessness, and parental rights have nothing to do with which gender wields more political power and has an advantage in being elected President...that's what this thread is about.

Well personally I'd rather have a female politician who treats make issues with respect and consideration than a male politician that doesn't. But that is probably a typical viewpoint of young males, I think der folks are different on both fronts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Second post: men "hold the deck" despite lower college graduation rates, lower life expectancy, more homelessness, rampant discrimination in child custody determinations. Obviously a massive overstatement with no nuance.

Third post: white men automatically full of "grievances" and "resentful." Not some, of course, but all. And of course if a white male has a position on an issue involving race / gender it can never be justified.

Anyways I don't even care if people vote for Hillary b/c she is a woman
But you can build up without tearing others down.

If men don't hold the deck, why have there only been male presidents? Why is the composition of the US Congress 80 percent men? You cannot possibly be serious thinking that somehow women are holding all the cards.

Maybe men are relatively advantaged in some ways and women are relatively advantaged in others?

No, that sounds too reasonable to possibly be true.

I think you're right in many of the areas you described above (except maybe college graduation rates...I think there's a lot more complexity driving that one). But life expectancy, homelessness, and parental rights have nothing to do with which gender wields more political power and has an advantage in being elected President...that's what this thread is about.

Well personally I'd rather have a female politician who treats make issues with respect and consideration than a male politician that doesn't. But that is probably a typical viewpoint of young males, I think der folks are different on both fronts.

I meant make issues, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Second post: men "hold the deck" despite lower college graduation rates, lower life expectancy, more homelessness, rampant discrimination in child custody determinations. Obviously a massive overstatement with no nuance.

Third post: white men automatically full of "grievances" and "resentful." Not some, of course, but all. And of course if a white male has a position on an issue involving race / gender it can never be justified.

Anyways I don't even care if people vote for Hillary b/c she is a woman
But you can build up without tearing others down.

If men don't hold the deck, why have there only been male presidents? Why is the composition of the US Congress 80 percent men? You cannot possibly be serious thinking that somehow women are holding all the cards.

Maybe men are relatively advantaged in some ways and women are relatively advantaged in others?

No, that sounds too reasonable to possibly be true.

I think you're right in many of the areas you described above (except maybe college graduation rates...I think there's a lot more complexity driving that one). But life expectancy, homelessness, and parental rights have nothing to do with which gender wields more political power and has an advantage in being elected President...that's what this thread is about.

Well personally I'd rather have a female politician who treats make issues with respect and consideration than a male politician that doesn't. But that is probably a typical viewpoint of young males, I think der folks are different on both fronts.

I meant make issues, sorry.

Ah, crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because men don't typically propose gender specific policies. Clinton on the other hand has many gender specific policies. It's not he candidates gender that dictates a "Woman's Card", it's their policies.

What are some of her gender specific policies? Family leave? Childcare? Nah, it would be sexist of you to assume that childcare was a woman's issue.

Is it gender neutral family leave? (Not trying to be snarky - generally curious).

Family leave is typically viewed as gender-neutral, though women probably disproportionately use it. Maternity leave is different and has to do with a woman recovering from either pushing a human being out of her vagina or having had major abdominal surgery...both after 9 mos of having incubated and grown said human inside their body.

I have kids, don't need an anatomy lesson, just asked a question. Anyways, what types of policies is she proposing? Any details yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So it's bashing to say someone holds the power? Really? I'm still waiting for you to point out the man bashing you claimed was there.

Second post: men "hold the deck" despite lower college graduation rates, lower life expectancy, more homelessness, rampant discrimination in child custody determinations. Obviously a massive overstatement with no nuance.

Third post: white men automatically full of "grievances" and "resentful." Not some, of course, but all. And of course if a white male has a position on an issue involving race / gender it can never be justified.

Anyways I don't even care if people vote for Hillary b/c she is a woman
But you can build up without tearing others down.

Oh come on, our college graduation rates are overdone. First of all, they are 57%. It's not a landslide. Second, if you want to be an electrician (a job men tend to take), you don't need any diploma. But if you want to teach kindergarten, you need a college degree. Even though the electrician will make more than you. Plumbers don't need degrees, but nurses do. So women need degrees to get to the same level of earning that many men get by entering the trades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Second post: men "hold the deck" despite lower college graduation rates, lower life expectancy, more homelessness, rampant discrimination in child custody determinations. Obviously a massive overstatement with no nuance.

Third post: white men automatically full of "grievances" and "resentful." Not some, of course, but all. And of course if a white male has a position on an issue involving race / gender it can never be justified.

Anyways I don't even care if people vote for Hillary b/c she is a woman
But you can build up without tearing others down.

If men don't hold the deck, why have there only been male presidents? Why is the composition of the US Congress 80 percent men? You cannot possibly be serious thinking that somehow women are holding all the cards.

Maybe men are relatively advantaged in some ways and women are relatively advantaged in others?

No, that sounds too reasonable to possibly be true.

I think you're right in many of the areas you described above (except maybe college graduation rates...I think there's a lot more complexity driving that one). But life expectancy, homelessness, and parental rights have nothing to do with which gender wields more political power and has an advantage in being elected President...that's what this thread is about.

Well personally I'd rather have a female politician who treats make issues with respect and consideration than a male politician that doesn't. But that is probably a typical viewpoint of young males, I think der folks are different on both fronts.

Any way you slice it 43% of college grads doesn't exactly sound like "the deck" to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you looking for something to be offended by?

Apparently, so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have kids, don't need an anatomy lesson, just asked a question. Anyways, what types of policies is she proposing? Any details yet?

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/paid-leave/

Proposing 12 weeks of paid leave for men and women through a tax on the highest income brackets. I don't think that'll work, incidentally. At least some of the states that have successfully impelmented this have done so through a payroll tax but capped benefits to high earners...it's a more sensible approach policy-wise, imho. As a political starting place for negotiating a policy, though, I think Clinton's approach is sensible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So it's bashing to say someone holds the power? Really? I'm still waiting for you to point out the man bashing you claimed was there.

Second post: men "hold the deck" despite lower college graduation rates, lower life expectancy, more homelessness, rampant discrimination in child custody determinations. Obviously a massive overstatement with no nuance.

Third post: white men automatically full of "grievances" and "resentful." Not some, of course, but all. And of course if a white male has a position on an issue involving race / gender it can never be justified.

Anyways I don't even care if people vote for Hillary b/c she is a woman
But you can build up without tearing others down.

Oh come on, our college graduation rates are overdone. First of all, they are 57%. It's not a landslide. Second, if you want to be an electrician (a job men tend to take), you don't need any diploma. But if you want to teach kindergarten, you need a college degree. Even though the electrician will make more than you. Plumbers don't need degrees, but nurses do. So women need degrees to get to the same level of earning that many men get by entering the trades.

Yet, there is nothing stopping women from becoming plumbers or working in the "trades..." You simply point out your own bias against these jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have kids, don't need an anatomy lesson, just asked a question. Anyways, what types of policies is she proposing? Any details yet?

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/paid-leave/

Proposing 12 weeks of paid leave for men and women through a tax on the highest income brackets. I don't think that'll work, incidentally. At least some of the states that have successfully impelmented this have done so through a payroll tax but capped benefits to high earners...it's a more sensible approach policy-wise, imho. As a political starting place for negotiating a policy, though, I think Clinton's approach is sensible.

Always a hike on the higher brackets to pay for choices made by others...tired diatribe of class envy."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So it's bashing to say someone holds the power? Really? I'm still waiting for you to point out the man bashing you claimed was there.

Second post: men "hold the deck" despite lower college graduation rates, lower life expectancy, more homelessness, rampant discrimination in child custody determinations. Obviously a massive overstatement with no nuance.

Third post: white men automatically full of "grievances" and "resentful." Not some, of course, but all. And of course if a white male has a position on an issue involving race / gender it can never be justified.

Anyways I don't even care if people vote for Hillary b/c she is a woman
But you can build up without tearing others down.

Oh come on, our college graduation rates are overdone. First of all, they are 57%. It's not a landslide. Second, if you want to be an electrician (a job men tend to take), you don't need any diploma. But if you want to teach kindergarten, you need a college degree. Even though the electrician will make more than you. Plumbers don't need degrees, but nurses do. So women need degrees to get to the same level of earning that many men get by entering the trades.

So be a plumber or an electrician.

Your post simply reinforces gender stereotypes that you condemn. And which should be condemned.

[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.

Substitute 'her' with 'him' in your post and you have Trump. Then I would agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Nope. Your gender radar is off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So it's bashing to say someone holds the power? Really? I'm still waiting for you to point out the man bashing you claimed was there.

Second post: men "hold the deck" despite lower college graduation rates, lower life expectancy, more homelessness, rampant discrimination in child custody determinations. Obviously a massive overstatement with no nuance.

Third post: white men automatically full of "grievances" and "resentful." Not some, of course, but all. And of course if a white male has a position on an issue involving race / gender it can never be justified.

Anyways I don't even care if people vote for Hillary b/c she is a woman
But you can build up without tearing others down.

Oh come on, our college graduation rates are overdone. First of all, they are 57%. It's not a landslide. Second, if you want to be an electrician (a job men tend to take), you don't need any diploma. But if you want to teach kindergarten, you need a college degree. Even though the electrician will make more than you. Plumbers don't need degrees, but nurses do. So women need degrees to get to the same level of earning that many men get by entering the trades.

So be a plumber or an electrician.

Your post simply reinforces gender stereotypes that you condemn. And which should be condemned.

Well it's okay to be sexist against men. The same women who say it's a woman choice to be a sahm, think a sahd is a loser and should get a job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She uses thinly veiled code words for men, specifically white men. It's just socially acceptable to be this type of racist and sexist. There are a select few white men in this country who do well, the majority do not. As a high powered white women marriage to a high powered white male she has benefitted from her position and racist. Yet some how she is an opposed minority...hardly.

A "select few" white men in this country do well?