Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Mist · Jun 2, 2014

Araysar_sl said:
Is it possible that the under-representation of women in US politics is because the only thing that women hate more than men is other women?

So only American women hate other American women? It can't possibly be due to other factors? You're intentionally sticking your head in the sand and making yourself look stupid.

America's campaign finance system is the most fucked up and rigged out of all western democracies. Every other major western power would riot if their elections were as rigged as ours. And not surprisingly, ours has the least representation of women.

You really need to educate yourself to how the campaign finance system works. You haven't even brought in all that superpac money.

Araysar · Jun 2, 2014

Mist_sl said:
So only American women hate other American women? It can't possibly be due to other factors? You're intentionally sticking your head in the sand and making yourself look stupid.

America's campaign finance system is the most fucked up and rigged out of all western democracies. Every other major western power would riot if their elections were as rigged as ours. And not surprisingly, ours has the least representation of women.

You really need to educate yourself to how the campaign finance system works. You haven't even brought in all that superpac money.

Thanks, I'm pretty familiar with the campaign finance system.

Maybe now you can explain how the American campaign finance system is holding women down?

Big Phoenix · Jun 2, 2014

how do men with micropenises check their privilege?

Mist · Jun 2, 2014

Araysar_sl said:
Thanks, I'm pretty familiar with the campaign finance system.

Maybe now you can explain how the American campaign finance system is holding women down?

I JUST FUCKING DID. A tiny handful of people get to decide who has enough money/PAC backing to run. And those people are almost all white men.

iannis · Jun 2, 2014

You know, you kinda had a point and then it just degenerated into focusless angst. The part where you ignore the most relevant example because it disagrees with your theory is kind of important.

Let me guess. The way to fix our problems is to mandate representation in the Congress along gender/race/sexuality lines. We MUST have a gay blaxican woman in at least ONE house. The way to unrig our system is to rig it even worse. And to make it even worse. Because issues can only be credibly considered if you've been victimized enough. No matter which way you go from here it's heading in that general direction.

Because it's true. Women are under represented in political office -- and that's a little bit weird. As shocking as it is the reason for that could quite possibly be more nuanced than "old boys network".

Araysar · Jun 2, 2014

Meg Whitman lost women by 5 points to a white male in Feminist Paradise of California for the position of governor, which might be the most high profile US race that a woman has participated in other than Sarah Palin's bid for VP in 2008 and Hilary Clinton's bid for the DNC nomination in 2008.

If you can't get Californian women to vote for another woman, one who has also spent $140M of her own money on the campaign - I'm not sure whether the problem is rich old white guys anymore. By the way, the guy prior to her won women by 15 points. Schwarzamajigger or something.

Mist · Jun 2, 2014

Iannis_sl said:
Let me guess. The way to fix our problems is to mandate representation in the Congress along gender/race/sexuality lines. We MUST have a gay blaxican woman in at least ONE house. The way to unrig our system is to rig it even worse. And to make it even worse. Because issues can only be credibly considered if you've been victimized enough. No matter which way you go from here it's heading in that general direction.

No, that's not the way to fix it. The way to fix it is to put real limits on campaign fund raising, and eliminate SuperPACs completely.

Watch the fucking video. 132 people gave 60% of ALL SuperPAC donations in 2012. And guess who those people are? Only 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, so I'm guessing not many of them are women.

The thing is, those 132 people are not just the enemy of women. They're the enemy of YOU too. Fix this one problem and you can start to make this a better country for ALL people of both genders.

Mist · Jun 2, 2014

Araysar_sl said:
Meg Whitman lost women by 5 points to a white male in Feminist Paradise of California for the position of governor, which might be the most high profile US race that a woman has participated in other than Sarah Palin's bid for VP in 2008 and Hilary Clinton's bid for the DNC nomination in 2008.

If you can't get Californian women to vote for another woman, one who has also spent $140M of her own money on the campaign - I'm not sure whether the problem is rich old white guys anymore. By the way, the guy prior to her won women by 15 points. Schwarzamajigger or something.

Who the fuck wants to vote for Meg fucking Whitman? Her policies were horrible, and anti-women. That's how the system is rigged. The female candidates that the GOP puts up are almost all anti-women, and when they lose, they say dumb shit like you are, that women must hate women.

Mist · Jun 2, 2014

Araysar_sl said:
On top of that, voting based on gender essentially says that the candidate views are irrelevant, what matters is whatever is between a candidate's legs. It's the most blatant form of sexism imaginable.

To your point about women voting for women, women shouldn't vote for women just because they're women.

You're RIGHT, that WOULD be terribly sexist.

They should vote for women that women actually want to vote for, that support policies that women actually want.

But since men largely control the process of who gets to run, the women that get to run are largely women that women don't want to vote for. See: Sarah fucking Palin.

Sebudai · Jun 2, 2014

So the explanation for the lack of female representatives in government is that donors are reluctant to donate to female candidates? Is there evidence for this, or are we just assuming it's true?

Araysar · Jun 2, 2014

Mist_sl said:
No, that's not the way to fix it. The way to fix it is to put real limits on campaign fund raising, and eliminate SuperPACs completely.

Watch the fucking video. 132 people gave 60% of ALL SuperPAC donations in 2012. And guess who those people are? Only 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, so I'm guessing not many of them are women.

The thing is, those 132 people are not just the enemy of women. They're the enemy of YOU too. Fix this one problem and you can start to make this a better country for ALL people of both genders.

No one's arguing that campaign fund raising is broken and so is the SuperPAC system which should have never been allowed to exist.

But that's not what's being argued. There's no proof that this is what holding women back. As a matter of fact, looking at the races like Whitman, Palin, O'Donnell, Feinstein, Pelosi and many others - it becomes fairly clear that the main focus is winning, not gender. And if a woman has a better chance of winning the race, neither side will hesitate to run her.

I'm providing you with stats where women themselves refused to vote for other women. Whether its Whitman in 2010 or Clinton at DNC, women themselves seem to be more likely to vote for men than women. If that's the case, how can political representation be argued as a point?

Mist · Jun 2, 2014

Sebudai_sl said:
So the explanation for the lack of female representatives in government is that donors are reluctant to donate to female candidates? Is there evidence for this, or are we just assuming it's true?

The evidence exists. It's called every other functioning western democracy. In every other country where real limits on campaign donations/spending exists, both by law and by custom, women hold far higher percentages of elected offices.

Araysar · Jun 2, 2014

Sebudai_sl said:
So the explanation for the lack of female representatives in government is that donors are reluctant to donate to female candidates? Is there evidence for this, or are we just assuming it's true?

Yeah thats a bit mind boggling to me. Even Christine O'Donnell hoovered up at least $4M in donations.

Mist · Jun 2, 2014

Araysar_sl said:
No one's arguing that campaign fund raising is broken and so is the SuperPAC system which should have never been allowed to exist.

But that's not what's being argued. There's no proof that this is what holding women back. As a matter of fact, looking at the races like Whitman, Palin, O'Donnell, Feinstein, Pelosi and many others - it becomes fairly clear that the main focus is winning, not gender. And if a woman has a better chance of winning the race, neither side will hesitate to run her.

I'm providing you with stats where women themselves refused to vote for other women. Whether its Whitman in 2010 or Clinton at DNC, women themselves seem to be more likely to vote for men than women. If that's the case, how can political representation be argued as a point?

You're completely and purposefully ignoring every other real working democracy in the fucking world.

The real answer is that America's political system is so fucking broken that we don't really live in a democracy. This hurts women but it hurts you too.

Araysar · Jun 2, 2014

Mist_sl said:
The evidence exists. It's called every other functioning western democracy. In every other country where real limits on campaign donations/spending exists, both by law and by custom, women hold far higher percentages of elected offices.

As a foreigner myself, I noticed that women in every other western democracy are a lot less cuntier than US women.

Perhaps this is the key difference rather than campaign financing?

iannis · Jun 2, 2014

The problem with that is that money, in very real ways, IS political speech. There is nothing stopping like minded groups of citizens from organizing and donating to the candidate that best represents their interest. That is a very real thing. That is a freedom that must be safeguarded in a democracy as great as ours.

So while capping donations like that undeniably has merits -- not all aspects of the idea are what you should consider positive. It is an insidious way to limit speech and to limit representation.

I agree though. McCains reform did exactly the opposite of what he was trying to sell it as. There should be no soft money, there should be no anonymous super-pacs.

It's not that the idea is dumb, it's not a dumb idea. It's just that I don't see how it would accomplish the goal if that's literally all that was changed.

Mist · Jun 2, 2014

Araysar_sl said:
Yeah thats a bit mind boggling to me. Even Christine O'Donnell hoovered up at least $4M in donations.

Most of Chrstine O'Donnells donations were out of state funds being used to push a GOP candidate in a race that became highly publicized. They weren't real honest donations.

Mist · Jun 2, 2014

Araysar_sl said:
As a foreigner myself, I noticed that women in every other western democracy are a lot less cuntier than US women.

DATA PLEASE. SERIOUSLY, I WANT TO SEE THIS ON A GRAPH.

Mist · Jun 2, 2014

Iannis_sl said:
The problem with that is that money, in very real ways, IS political speech. There is nothing stopping like minded groups of citizens from organizing and donating to the candidate that best represents their interest. That is a very real thing. That is a freedom that must be safeguarded in a democracy as great as ours.

So while capping donations like that undeniably has merits -- not all aspects of the idea are what you should consider positive. It is an insidious way to limit speech and to limit representation.

I agree though. McCains reform did exactly the opposite of what he was trying to sell it as. There should be no soft money, there should be no anonymous super-pacs.

It's not that the idea is dumb, it's not a dumb idea. It's just that I don't see how it would accomplish the goal if that's literally all that was changed.

A really good start would be to not allow out of state funds for state elections.

iannis · Jun 2, 2014

We tried that. We called it Reconstruction, down here in the south.

Fuck that, and fuck you for suggesting it.

Kindly.

Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

REEEEeyore

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

REEEEeyore

Musty Nester

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

REEEEeyore

REEEEeyore

REEEEeyore

Ssraeszha Raider

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

REEEEeyore

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

REEEEeyore

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Musty Nester

REEEEeyore

REEEEeyore

REEEEeyore

Musty Nester