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.

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).

Of course. Family and medical for all.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Please identify the thinly veiled code words for men that you find so offensive.

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.

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.

Trump invented the "woman's card" out of thin air.

If anything, being a woman is going to hurt her because some (notice I saw "some") men are so biased they will never vote for a woman.

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.

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.

She wasn't a freshman senator when she was picked for SoS.

Anonymous wrote: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."

I did not support Sarah Palin and did not vote for Donna Edwards. However, I looked at Donna Edwards' and Van Hollen's credentials a lot before pulling the lever for Van Hollen - because I wanted to make sure my bias is not prompting me to vote for a white man. All things being equal I would have voted for Edwards - because her race and gender (not she herself) deserves fair representation. I believe we all need to do that, to question what media tells us, whether we agree with what we are fed because of the social conditioning or it is actually true. We owe this to our kids and to the country!